Expose: David Rose does not understand baselines

Never failing to disappoint, David Rose is back with a new expose on how world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data. It refers to a paper published by Karl et al. in 2015 in which they suggested that there were [p]ossible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. David Rose has, however, found a whistleblower who has come forward to highlight how the data in this paper was manipulated. This whistleblower is a recently retired NOAA employee who apparently has an impeccable reputation. Of coure, David Rose appears not to have consulted any others who might also have impeccable reputations. Also, to suggest that this one paper was the primary influence in recent decisions about global warming is utterly bizarre, especially as this paper didn’t really change our basic understanding at all.

Credit : Zeke Hausfather

Credit : Zeke Hausfather

I probably don’t have to say very much (I may, as usual, fail) since Zeke Hausfather has already written a Carbon Brief post and Victor Venema has also already covered it. The basic suggestion in David Rose’s article is that the authors of the Karl et al. paper didn’t follow the correct procedure for verifying the data that was used and didn’t archive it properly. He also claims that the lead author insisted on choies that maxmised warming and minimised documentation. Well, as far as I can tell, all of the necessary data is here. Also, the David Rose article appears to largely ignore the recent Hausfather et al. paper which indicates that the corrections made in Karl et al. (2015) are consistent with buoys and satellites (illustrated in the figure on the right).

David Rose’s article also includes the figure below, which purports to show that the NOAA data was adjusted to show higher temperatures. Well, this is immediately odd in that the issue is really the trend (i.e., how fast is it changing), not the actual temperature values. Also, the difference is almost entirely because NOAA presents their temperature anomalies relative to a 1901-2000 baseline, while HadCRUT4 presents theirs relative to a 1961-1990 baseline. If you shift them to have the same baseline, the discrepancy goes away. The immediate conclusion one might draw is that the figure below is intentionally misleading, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that David Rose simply does not understand the concept of a temperature anomaly, despite have written many articles about them.

Credit : David Rose - Mail on Sunday

Credit : David Rose – Mail on Sunday

There’s probably not much more to say. The Karl et al. corrections appear to have been confirmed by (or, are consistent with) Hausfather et al. (2017), and the temperature anomaly figure in David Rose’s article is highly misleading. Yes, he’s found someone to complain about how the authors of Karl et al. conducted themselves, but a scientist going to the media to do so, is also a highly unusual way to conduct oneself. At the end of the day, we’d really like to better understand how global temperatures are changing and – as it stands – it appears that Karl et al. made a positive contribution to our understanding. That’s ultimately the goal of research.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, ethics, Research, The scientific method, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

287 Responses to Expose: David Rose does not understand baselines

  1. A quick comment. I actually download the Karl et al. data (new and old) and downloaded data from the NOAA site. The only way I can reproduce the temperature figure in David Rose’s article is to use the data from the NOAA site. I’m not sure that this is actually the same as the data from Karl et al., so it’s not even clear that David Rose’s figure is using the data that he suggsests that it is.

  2. Marco says:

    According to the GWPF, the *real* point in Rose’s article supposedly is a credibility failure. One wonders why that message is to be conveyed using graphs that misrepresent the facts…

  3. Well, yes, one might hope that it was intentionally ironic, but I suspect it was not.

  4. Fergus Brown says:

    Apropos of your title; indeed, Rose is here, once again, in breach of articles 2, 3 and 4 of the NUJ code of conduct for journalists. Hardly impeccable. Note; Jim Hunt also covers this, not surprisingly.

  5. Fergus,
    Sorry, I decided that in the interests of trying to maintain some form of dialogue, to change the title. Point taken, though.

  6. A good piece on the fake scandal by an Irish professor Peter Thorne who worked at NOAA with more information on the internal regulations.

    (If you are born in England and work in Ireland are you an English professor or an Irish professor?)

  7. Victor,
    Yes, I’ve just seen that. Looks excellent, in particular the indication that John Bates had no direct involvement.

  8. Marco says:

    One thing Rose and Curry can no longer deny after this piece is that they are coordinating. Curry has been mentioning that “NOAA whistleblower” for months, and ‘surprisingly’, on the same day that David Rose writes his hit piece, Curry has Bates’ letter on her blog.

  9. Jim Hunt says:

    Fergus – Thanks for your input. My response can be seen at:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217736

    Victor – Might I extend this invitation to you also?

  10. Phil says:

    ATTP: Minor typo in the final para of the OP. Hausfather et al. was, in fact published in 2017 not, as you have it, 2016.

  11. angech says:

    Expose: David Rose does not understand baselines.
    He is a journalist , not letting the facts get in the way of a story.
    I feel he does understand them and knows that the artificial difference sells more controversy.

  12. Patrick Hackett says:

    Well explained ATTP.
    BTW i think you mean ” (i.e., HOW fast is it changing) in paragraph 3

  13. Magma says:

    I looked at Judith Curry’s Twitter stream. She’s abandoned any pretence of objectivity.

    “You went full skeptic, man. Never go full skeptic.” — Kirk Lazarus, Tropic Thunder 2: The Stadium Waves Back

  14. Joshua says:

    angech –

    =={ I feel he does understand them and knows that the artificial difference sells more controversy. }==

    Although Judith clearly coordinates with Rose, in the past she has declined to comment on or correct his inaccuracies (even when asked directly to do so) except to suggest that his errors balance the public record (apparently employing “two wrongs make a right” logic).

    Would you consider a lack of comment here on her part, or a comment that focuses on diminishing the significance of Rose’s error, to be an indication of “scientific advocacy” or an “activist scientist?”

  15. What’s frustrating is that the minute Rose’s article has gone to press, his goal is achieved and he doesn’t give a flying fuck what reaction it will stir in the climate science arena. Today 1,497,855 people will have a lazy Sunday morning absorbing again the ‘alternative fact’ that climate change is fixed.

    Rose keeps repeatedly spreading misinformation without any attempt to check his sources, however many times he’s told. It’s as if he’s doing his master’s bidding.

  16. Phil,
    Thanks, fixed.

    Patrick,
    Thanks, fixed.

  17. angech,
    It’s quite possible, but that would suggest that he presented that graph to be intentionally misleading.

  18. John Russell,
    Indeed, and he’ll probably pretend to engage with critics and then repeat this kind of thing in his next article.

  19. Joshua says:

    Sorry angech –

    Autocorrect doesn’t like your nic. [Mod: fixed]

  20. > David Rose has, however, found a whistleblower

    Judy handed that story to him:

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

    Another meteorologist.

  21. JCH says:

    Just read ZH’s piece, and read VV’s last night.

    Has anybody addressed the 90% thing… a big part of that massive thumb on the scale? I suspect the answer is simple.

    And yes Willard, Professor Curry wad behind the whole thing… possibly approved the graph as she’s that sloppy. Smear smear, smear smear, oh what a joy it is.

  22. izen says:

    The graphs Rose uses are almost irrelevant, critiquing them is taking the bait.
    The article frames a empirical scientific question, – how much is the climate warming, as a matter of corrupt, criminal and malicious actions by NOAA.
    Whistle-blowers are commonly people who reveal financial crime or institutional corruption that harm employers or the public. It is revealing critical information against the wishes of an authority. Not quibbling over procedural details of archiving policy.

    But by writing it as a scoop revelation, what is a matter of diverse groups and methods incrementally improving the accuracy of the climate record, becomes suspect behaviour by a shadowy group of conspirators on a parr with the revelations of money laundering and tax cheating in the Cayman islands, or the Flint toxic water episode.

    The article only makes sense if you start with the underlying assumption that the ‘experts’ are trying to impose political change and are prepared to falsify empirical records to further their ideological goals.

  23. JCH,
    Nick Stokes mentions the 90% thing here. He says:

    He makes a fuss about the choice of 90% CIs. They are actually common enough, but for this case, they are clearly required, because they are what is used in the AR5 analysis that he is comparing with. See Box 2.2, AR5.

  24. verytallguy says:

    Expose: David Rose does not understand baselines

    A very charitable interpretation.

  25. JCH says:

    Thanks… that’s why I posted the relevant IPCC section at CargoCult Etc. last night, but nobody took the bait.

    I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort 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. …. – hatchet job

    It looked apparent to me that Karl 15 used the 90% because the IPCC used it, but I’m just a C student.

  26. vtg,
    The initial headline was less charitable, but I decided to try to hold the moral high ground.

    izen,

    The article frames a empirical scientific question, – how much is the climate warming, as a matter of corrupt, criminal and malicious actions by NOAA.

    Indeed, a good point.

  27. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming.

    The above is, of course, framed negatively, but the role of a lead author is to lead the project and to ultimately make decisions. The role of the co-authors is to contribute both to the work and to inform the decision making. If they don’t like the decisions, they can ask to withdraw – I’ve just done exactly this (although I’m being drawn back in because it then turned out I was not alone in my concerns).

  28. > Professor Curry

    That’d be Emeritus Judy to you, JCH.

  29. JCH says:

    So… in your case obviously the lead author is either Darth Vader or Tom Karl.

  30. > The article frames a empirical scientific question, – how much is the climate warming, as a matter of corrupt, criminal and malicious actions by NOAA.

    The last level of the Matrix:

    https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/we-won/

  31. JCH says:

    So when Bates asked the co-author about the 90%, what was the co-author was thinking?

    Also, the WaPo did not run a shorter version of the hatchet job. Why? Maybe they call people. Maybe they check facts.

  32. David Rose has updated the caption of his figure to say:

    The red line shows the current NOAA world temperature graph – elevated in recent years due to the ‘adjusted’ sea data. The blue line is the Met Office’s independent HadCRUT4 record. Although they are offset in temperature by 0.12°C due to different analysis techniques, they reveal that NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend.

    Below are the two datasets with the NOAA data lowered by 0.12oC. I don’t see how one can claim that this reveals that NOAA has been adjusted to show a steeper warming trend.

  33. As far as I can tell, the 1997-2017 NOAA trend is smaller than Berkeley, GISTemp, and Cowtan and Way (or HadCRUT4 with kriging). You can check this with the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator.

  34. Marco says:

    “…they reveal that NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend. ”

    This makes no sense either. Comparing HADCRUT4 with Karl et al 2015 cannot “reveal” any adjustment.

    Apart from that, I also did the trend calculations and NOAA’s trend is a whopping 1.6% or so larger than that of HADCRUT4… (0.135 vs 0.133).

    Clutching at straws to maintain the narrative.

  35. Joshua says:

    Magma –

    =={ I looked at Judith Curry’s Twitter stream. She’s abandoned any pretence of objectivity.} ==

    Judith will continue to insist that her opinions are completely objective, her complete certainty is redirect for uncertainty, and her advocacy is not advocacy.

    Guaranteed.

  36. numerobis says:

    Victor Venema: “(If you are born in England and work in Ireland are you an English professor or an Irish professor?)”

    In Canada this is very common: a researcher somewhere in the world makes a “breakthrough” (writes a paper that looks interesting). If they’re at a Canadian institution when the reporter writes the news, they’re a Canadian researcher, even if they did the research elsewhere and only just moved to Canada. If they have Canadian citizenship, they’re Canadian regardless where they are now, or how long they’ve been out of the country. If they even just spent a while in Canada, the news will report that the researcher has ties to Canada.

    The US press tends just to report institution and maybe hyphenated-Americanness, if it’s particularly interesting.

  37. Looka here:

    > Most highly cited papers are in observational studies of long term variability and trends in atmospheric water vapor and clouds.

    http://sites.agu.org/leadership/leader/john-bates-2/

    Just a coincidence.

  38. Lorcan Bonda says:

    You are nothing if not consistent. Incredibly, the result is all you care about, even if the methods are terrible. The integrity of the scientific effort is the question.

    You have consistently denied the possibility of scientific bias, despite the evidence of its existence. You defended Cook’s “97% consensus” paper because he reported the answer you expected — despite the evidence of scientific misconduct on Cook’s part. When Judith Curry suggested that Karl should present his information before the Congress, you criticized her. You seemed to think that a general subpoena to seven private citizens to review all of their records is the same a specific subpoena to one government employee to discuss the information and results of specific government funded research.

    Now, that a suggestion of malfeasance on Karl’s part is met with “The Karl et al. corrections appear to have been confirmed by (or, are consistent with) Hausfather et al. (2017) … .” Again, you care little about the scientific biases presented in the article because Karl achieved the answer you were looking for.

    But that is not the issue here. Most newspaper articles and speeches defend AGW because it is “science.” But if science is flexible enough to get the answers you want, then it is not science. Science is supposed to be challenged in order to be self-correcting. If you accept science, simply because it found the answer you were looking for, then the integrity of science is called into question.

    The end does not justify the means.

    If Karl did not conduct his research following methods to insure integrity of the scientific method, then the paper is invalid. If Bates is truthful in his article, then climate science will die as a discipline along with Eugenics and Lysenkoism. If you want climate science to continue as a discipline, then your task is to ensure the integrity of the information presented before a whistleblower comes clean.

    (Note: a lot of people are incorrect in their crediting of this information. It isn’t David Rose or Judith Curry. The information comes from John Bates. Bates posted an article on Judith Curry’s blog (presumably with her permission), but that does not make Judith Curry the author. The David Rose report was based on an interview with Bates rather than the post. Judith Curry sometimes comments on these posts, but her only comment had to do with the “backstory”. She promised her own editorial post on the subject within a few days.

    Judith has written about the Karl paper several times stating, “Scientists on both sides of the climate debate have been critical of Karl’s paper and the adjustments made to temperature in the new data set, particularly the ocean data analysis.”)

  39. lorcan,
    I’ll post your comment and respond, but if your next one is a similar rant, I might not bother posting it.

    You have consistently denied the possibility of scientific bias, despite the evidence of its existence.

    No, in fact I’ve often acknowledged that individuals can be biased. My response, though, is that we should trust the method, not the people.

    You defended Cook’s “97% consensus” paper because he reported the answer you expected — despite the evidence of scientific misconduct on Cook’s part.

    I defended Cook et al. partly because I redid some of their analysis and got a consistent result, and partly because all of the critiques were silly and – in some cases – made claims that were clearly untrue.

    When Judith Curry suggested that Karl should present his information before the Congress, you criticized her.

    This isn’t what happened. The request wasn’t that Karl should appear before congress. IIRC, the request was for all of his emails.

    You seemed to think that a general subpoena to seven private citizens to review all of their records is the same a specific subpoena to one government employee to discuss the information and results of specific government funded research.

    I think scientists should be treated the same whether they’re government employees, or not. All of the relevant information is in the public domain. Your suggestion that the request was simply to discuss the information and results seems a rather rose-tinted view of what happened. As I said above, I think the request was for all emails, not just a request to discuss the information and results.

  40. izen says:

    @-“Judith has written about the Karl paper several times stating, “Scientists on both sides of the climate debate have been critical of Karl’s paper and the adjustments made to temperature in the new data set, particularly the ocean data analysis.”

    Scientists have been critical, by using as many different methods to improve the accuracy of the record. There are minor differences, but within the limit of statistical significance all methods converge to the same warming trend. Correcting any errors is seen as a process of doing more science, not quasi-criminal investigation.

    Arguments about the detail of data choice and homogenisation methods that cause a few percent difference between different records is NOT a justification for asserting that the whole edifice is as corrupt and misguided as Lysenkoism.

    If you were aware of the history of that sorry episode, how much it was rejected by scientists within Russia and how dependent on the ignorance and arrogance of its autocratic patron, you might wonder who Trump thinks is a good pick for science guy at the white house?

  41. Pingback: Che riflessi pronti - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

  42. Magma says:

    At his post at Climate Etc., John Bates states:

    In the fall of 2012, the monthly temperature products issued by NCDC were incorrect for 3 months in a row. As a result, the press releases and datasets had to be withdrawn and reissued. Dr. Mary Kicza, then the NESDIS Associate Administrator (the parent organization of NCDC/NCEI in NOAA), noted that these repeated errors reflected poorly on NOAA and required NCDC/NCEI to improve its software management processes so that such mistakes would be minimized in the future. Over the next several years, NCDC/NCEI had an incident report conducted to trace these errors and recommend corrective actions.

    The error in question led to the 2012 temperature anomaly for the contiguous U.S. being reported for about four weeks as 3.25 °F rather than 3.26 °F.

    A comment by Michael Mann last summer puts this size of error into perspective:

    What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see the impacts of climate change playing out in real time on our television screens in the 24 hour news cycle… The signal of climate change is no longer subtle. It is obvious.

  43. This comment by Tom Peterson is interesting, because it provides a different perspective tp one of the issues raised by John Bates in his guest post on CE.

  44. Marco says:

    To be quite honest, if any scientist was critical of the Karl et al paper for what they did with the ocean data analysis…they are really bad scientists who are incapable of reading what may well be the most clearly written Science paper I have ever seen. It is immediately made clear, with frequent references, that Karl et al uses the already established ERSST.v4 dataset (reference 13, people may note that Karl does not appear as a co-author on that paper). It then describes the main corrections in that ocean data set compared to previous version, but Karl et al didn’t do any (further) corrections. Karl et al also did not make up some new land record either, but used the ISTI database, also already published and described in detail, in which, again Karl was not involved. In other words, if Karl had any influence at all, it must have been in the background. Much more likely is that he didn’t do what Bates apparently claims he has done: push people to use methods that increase warming. Peter Thorne backs that up.

    I also have not seen any major criticisms of climate scientists ‘on our side of the debate’ about that ocean data set. Heck, I cannot even remember minor criticisms, only the usual scientific skepticism that new data needs to be further validated by the wider scientific community before it is generally accepted.

  45. Marco,

    I also have not seen any major criticisms of climate scientists ‘on our side of the debate’ about that ocean data set.

    Indeed, and – as far as I’me aware – it had become clear that there was a discrepancy between the ship and buoy data that needed to be corrected.

  46. Phil says:

    it had become clear that there was a discrepancy between the ship and buoy data that needed to be corrected.

    For reference, the following is taken from Smith et al. Journal of Climate 2008 (page 8)

    Because ships tend to be biased warm relative to buoys and because of the increase in the number of buoys and the decrease in the number of ships, the merged in situ data without bias adjustment can have a cool bias relative to data with no ship–buoy bias. As buoys become more important to the in situ record, that bias can increase. Since the 1980s the SST in most areas has been warming. The increasing negative bias due to the increase in buoys tends to reduce this recent warming. This change in observations makes the in situ temperatures up to about 0.1°C cooler than they would be without bias. At present, methods for removing the ship–buoy bias are being developed and tested.

    The key point being that this issue was known, understood, and not contested, as far back as 2007, at the publication of version 3 of NOAA’s dataset. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that we had to wait until 2015 for version 4.

  47. Phil,
    Thanks, I hadn’t realised it was recognised as far back as that.

  48. Phil says:

    Page 8 – of the linked PDF document, not the journal … Doh!

  49. izen says:

    Is it unacceptably smug to boast I had this story over a year ago, 1st of Nov 2015.
    Karl et al was treated as evidence of a malicious conspiracy, then. The Lamar Smith investigation (JC a guest) was clearly certain that if they could just get the inside info they would find the smoking gun that would reveal how it is ALL a Chinese hoax. According to McAudit I see the failure to archive data correctly in time for publication is PROOF the whole thing is a deception !!

    https://izenmeme.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/here-are-the-emails-rep-lamar-smithr-is-looking-for/

  50. Jim Hunt says:

    izen – I have been putting your animated #PauseBuster in front of the House Science Committee on Twitter. They have studiously ignored me! However my alter ego took a different tack with Lamar Smith:

    Any chance of a retweet or three?

  51. JCH says:

    I still wish somebody would clarify the 90% issue. Bates is using it to show that Karl had his thumb on the scales, which he claims enhanced warming. It looked obvious to me that K15 was taking on the IPCC’s statement on the hiatus, in which they used 90%. I was afraid to actually state that last night so I just posted the IPCC report that explains the pause, which is what K15 directly addressed. Later Nick Stokes explained it.

    Was it wrong for K15 to use 90% if the IPCC used it, and… are they talking about the same thing?

    Because it appears this one issue is the majority of Bate’s argument for Karl having his thumb on the scales.

  52. In situ measurements versus satellite retrievals of ocean SST have *always* been known to have differences.
    Here’s an excerpt from Schluessel, P., H.-Y. Shin, W. J. Emery, and H. Grassl (1987), Comparison of satellite-derived sea surface temperatures with in situ skin measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 92(C3), 2859–2874, doi:10.1029/JC092iC03p02859.

    For a verification of the satellite SST retrieval methods, comparisons with in situ sea surface temperatures measured from ships or buoys are necessary. In most satellite SST verification studies [McClain et al., 1985; Bernstein and Chelton, 1985], surface bucket, ship injection (engine cooling water), drifting buoy, and XBT surface temperatures have been used as measures of in situ SST. As has been mentioned earlier, there can be a significant difference between these “bulk” measures of SST and the skin temperature measured by the satellite radiometer….

    … For a strongly stratified upper ocean the diurnal heating, by incoming solar radiation, of the upper few centimeters will raise the near-surface temperatures, increasing the skin temperature. The result will be a surface skin that is warmer than the water at a depth of several meters. Hence the range of the surface skin temperature will be between some tenths of a degree or more higher than the bulk temperature and several tenths below it. Figure 4 shows a histogram of the bulk-skin temperature differences which occurred during the entire Meteor cruise. The 0.2°K mean deviation of the cool sea surface skin from the deeper in situ temperatures still leaves a range of values from -0.5°K to 0.9°K. Taking this fact into account, one may expect systematic uncertainties when comparing remotely sensed SSTs to bulk temperatures that lie in the range of the SST accuracy required (0.3°C) for climate applications.

    Follow those citations back to Bernstein, R. L., and D. B. Chelton (1985), Large-scale sea surface temperature variability from satellite and shipboard measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 90(C6), 11619–11630, doi:10.1029/JC090iC06p11619. and we find:

    INHERENT PROBLEMS WITH SHIP AND SATELLITE SST MEASUREMENTS
    High quality in situ SST data from ships and buoys tend to be restricted to only a limited number of platforms that may only be operating in localized areas for limited periods of time. The only in situ SST data that begin to approach continuous global coverage come from the routine surface marine meteorological reports radioed ashore by ships. The great majority of those reports are derived from ship engine room measurements of the temperature of water brought in to cool the engines. Past work with these data, particularly by James and Fox [1972], Saur [1963], and Tabata [1978], indicates that typical individual observations have 1sigma noise levels of about 0.9°C and that the data, on average, tend to be biased warm by about 0.3°C, compared with adjacent high-quality surface observations. The bias is attributed to imperfect thermal insulation, permitting heat from the engine room to reach the SST sensor. The ship data used in the workshop were carefully screened by Steve Pazan (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) to eliminate obviously erroneous data, much of it due to misreported earth locations, which produce unrealistic ship speeds between adjacent reports by a given vessel….

    Shall we look at Saur 1963? This doesn’t concern satellites – just the inherent errors in ship measurements themselves. A Study of the Quality of Sea Water Temperatures Reported in Logs of Ships’ Weather Observations, J. F. T. Saur, U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory, Stanford, Calif., DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1963)0022.0.CO;2

    Reported sea water (injection) temperature observations vary considerably in quality. The fleet bias, or mean difference, of injection temperature observations as compared to surface temperature observations is estimated to be 1.2±0.6F and the standard deviation of differences to be 1.6F. Among the 12 ships, the ship bias, or mean of all differences derived from observations of a given ship, ranged from -0.5F to 3.0F, which is probably due to variations of the thermometer accuracy and of the thermometer installations between ships. The standard deviation about these means was 1.3F, which is a measure of the variability of present data records, provided that the bias for each ship could be determined and a correction applied. The variability of differences in the observations from a single ship is attributed to the system of taking and reporting sea water temperature observations from an injection thermometer….

    So there’s a long history of examining the data, trying to determine the best way to handle errors and uncertainties, comparing different measurement techniques to provide apples-apples data. Now we introduce buoys and someone thinks that process was never considered? It was known before the first buoy was launched that the data would have to be examined and compared – just as the data from ship buckets, engine room thermometers, and the various satellites employed had to be examined.

  53. JCH, the significance level is purely arbitrary/convention. The most used level is 95% and the second most used 90 (two times 5% at both tails of the distribution), but also 99% is popular and in experimental sciences sometimes even larger numbers are used, just because they can, just gather more data.

    If the IPCC used 90% and you want to compare with their results, which they clearly wanted to, they also used the IPCC periods to compute the trends, then you naturally use 90%. If Bates talked to a random co-author about this and not the first author, that co-author may well not have been aware of the reason why 90 or 95% was selected and because it is arbitrary anyway, that random co-author likely did not understand the reason for the question and did not given an informative answer.

  54. “It was known before the first buoy was launched that the data would have to be examined and compared”

    The percentage of buoys used to be modest and only growing slowly. The growth of the number of colder buoys makes the temperature a bit too small, without the proper correction. Unfortunately scientists think that understating the problem is less of a a problem. Thus they prioritised other work. I guess that is why the known problem was not immediately solved.

    If the percentage of buoys would grow from 0 to 100% (which did not happen) it would only be a bias of 0.12°C over the period this happens. So as long as the percentage of buoys is small, this produces only a small trend error in a direction that is not seen as problematic. The main worry may well have been that regionally the changes were sometimes larger.

    In recent decades the number of buoys started growing faster and thus also the influence of this small bias on the temperature trend. It was still very small, but because that stupid “hiatus” meme assumed data was perfect and any minor fluctuation could be physically interpreted, it mattered for this surreal “debate”.

  55. JCH says:

    Thanks VV.

    I suspect the co-author might have been thinking “are you (Bates) that freakin’ clueless?”

    I question that Bates has ever read the Karl paper. I don’t know how he could know about the IPCC reason for the 90% and still make such a stupid accusation. Something that elementary, and it appears he didn’t know. Nor did Emeritus Curry. She’s that sloppy. I mean, she calls it confusion.

  56. Tim Roberts says:

    OH dear, even students in the most basic Mathematics classes at my school would be able to tell you that those two graphs (second figure) are “similar”. As we move up to the most advanced classes, they would laugh at the posit that the graphs are significantly different, and would have robust reasons why (because they would bother to find out).
    I can only assume that Rose has little to no training in Mathematics, and has no understanding about what “trend” means – or just doesn’t care and likes the “sound of his own voice”
    Sorry about the rant but this kind of rubbish makes my blood boil!
    Who is paying this clown, and just as importantly who is listening to him?

  57. Willard says:

    It’s worse in context:

    Shortly after publication of K15, John and I began discussing our concerns about the paper. I encouraged him to come forward publicly with his concerns. Instead, he opted to try to work within the NOAA system to address the issues –to little effect. Upon his retirement from NOAA in November 2016, he decided to go public with his concerns.

    He submitted an earlier, shorter version of this essay to the Washington Post, in response to the 13 December article (climate scientists frantically copying data). The WaPo rejected his op-ed, so he decided to publish at Climate Etc.

    In the meantime, David Rose contacted me about a month ago, saying he would be in Atlanta covering a story about [something]. He had an extra day in Atlanta, and wanted to get together. I told him I wasn’t in Atlanta, but put him in contact with John Bates. David Rose and his editor were excited about what John had to say.

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

  58. Jim Hunt says:

    Tim – If I may I’ll refer you to my own magnum opus on the matter:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/

    It looks to us as though the nth iteration of “Climategate 2” barely made it out of the starting gate. However Mr. Rose’s loyal army of “rebloggers, retweeters, plagiarisers and other assorted acolytes” and that “Republican-led House science committee” may of course have other ideas?”

    Not to mention:

    the latest installment of the David & Judy Show has proved to be part of a coordinated attack on NOAA by the House Science Committee. Here’s their press release:

    https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

    Have you tried Googling some well known phrase or saying including the term “NOAA” recently?

  59. Both Bates and Curry have the ability to write a scientific article. That they chose to blog and tabloid the stuff shows they themselves know they are completely unreasonable and are just putting up a big political show.

    (And yes you can get that published, if there is actually something wrong with a much used dataset that is important for everyone, ever user to know. A German colleague has published such a scientific article for a precipitation dataset.)

    Some context, how people who know the Daily Mail see it:

  60. Tim Roberts says:

    @ Jim, Cheers mate – sometimes I despair however!

  61. JCH says:

    There is to be a rebuttal of Peter Thorne’s blog.

    I guess Atlanta is too confused to finish it tonight.

  62. angech says:

    “It’s quite possible, but that would suggest that he presented that graph to be intentionally misleading.”
    Of course, he is a journalist first and foremost. I did agree with you.
    Joshua,
    “Would you consider a lack of comment on her part, or a comment that focuses on diminishing the significance of Rose’s error, to be an indication of “scientific advocacy” or an “activist scientist?”
    She did make a belated comment.
    I think she has always advocated for science so I will pretend not to understand your insinuation. Yes she is an activist, just like the rest of us.
    JCH 95% is statistically significant , 90% is not.
    John Bates feels the difference is significant.
    “Because it appears this one issue is the majority of Bate’s argument for Karl having his thumb on the scales.”
    Not the way I read it, there were a multiplicity of allegations, I will go and check if needed. Nothing concrete was specified. Perhaps he will be more specific at a later date??

  63. angech – did you not read the part where 90% was used in AR5 to which a comparison was being made. I.e., 90% was required to be used for an apples to apples comparison.

    And who is John Bates and why should we care if he *feels* it’s significant? Hasn’t Peter Thorne already put a nail in “Who is John Bates?” Or didn’t you bother to read that either?

  64. JCH says:

    So you actually believe he asked that question with full knowledge that K15 specifically addressed the IPCC’s written report on a warming hiatus, which used 90%?

    Knowing that, he walked up to a co-author and asked why they chose 90%.

    Bates says the co-author did not defend the 90% choice.

    What exactly was there to defend?

  65. Marco says:

    “JCH 95% is statistically significant , 90% is not.”

    Why? I am seriously interested in your answer here. Why is 95% statistically significant, and 90% is not?

  66. Here is an article for those who think 95% is statistically significant, but 90% is not.

  67. verytallguy says:

    Wot Victor said:

    Both Bates and Curry have the ability to write a scientific article. That they chose to blog and tabloid the stuff shows they themselves know they are completely unreasonable and are just putting up a big political show.

    Also re.

    There is to be a rebuttal of Peter Thorne’s blog.

    Well, of course there is. The audit never ends.

  68. Jim Hunt says:

    Mornin’ all (UTC),

    Hopefully this will put the cat (and rabett) amongst the pigeons?

    Blog & tabloid? Moi?

  69. Magma says:

    This could be posted under Effective Science Communications as well, but this was Tony Watts’ final response to the always-polite and data-based Nick Stokes commenting on this topic at WUWT before apparently blocking him:

    “Nick, it’s time for you to just STFU”

  70. angech says:

    JCH “It looked apparent to me that Karl 15 used the 90% because the IPCC used it”
    The question is what is the % normally used by NOAA.
    Nick asserts comparisons to AR5, nowhere in Bates article is there a mention of such a comparison or a need for comparison just a standard to work by.
    “Here is an article for those who think 95% is statistically significant, but 90% is not.”
    Thanks ATTP, I am using that principle for a talk on medical test significance later this year.
    Marco “Why? I am seriously interested in your answer here. Why is 95% statistically significant, and 90% is not?”
    By definition and convention. Statistically significant means a result is unlikely due to chance. By convention the threshold for declaring statistical significance is a p-value of less than 0.05.
    If NOAA routinely uses a 95% range for statistical significance (their choice, some people who write here work there and could confirm then the use of a lower, looser range is not as desirable as a higher, tighter range. You would agree with that.
    “And who is John Bates and why should we care if he *feels* it’s significant? ”
    Just a non significant whistleblower at NOAA?

  71. angech,

    Statistically significant means a result is unlikely due to chance.

    In this case, however, you’re dealing with measurements, and the 90% interval tells you that 90% of your data falls within this range (although, in this case, this might be through Monte Carlo approach where you recompute the results using different parameters). In other words, 10% falls outside (5% on each side of the range). If you change it to 95%, the mean doesn’t change, but you just have a slightly wider range.

  72. Joshua says:

    angech –

    ==} She did make a belated comment.
    I think she has always advocated for science so I will pretend not to understand your insinuation. Yes she is an activist, just like the rest of us. {==

    I was hoping for a meaningful response. That doesn’t seem to me to fit the bill.

    Yes, she made a belated comment, which effectively does nothing other than duck the issue of the inaccurate and misleading graph. She has done similar before with Rose, where she responds to criticism of the accuracy of his articles by ducking the issue of the inaccuracy. It happened a few years ago and when I presented to her criticisms of Rose’s article where she was quoted and which she promoted, her response was on the order of “Well, there are many inaccuracies on the other side, so I’m not concerned about the inaccuracy”

    In this case, it was kind of even worse, because she commented on how the information on the chart was updated – but made no comment about the updating not actually correcting for the misleading nature of the graphic. Surely, you agree about the misleading nature of the graphic, don’t you? Given that the thesis of the article was that data were manipulated to result with a different trend than what is scientifically valid, then what purpose does the graphic show if it shows that the data in question show the same trend as other data (with a different baseline, a baseline that is validated by independent analyses)?

    You think that she has “always” advocated for “science.” Well, I think that she has always advocated for her view of the science and to ignore her biases is not only what she often does, it is what she is applauded for doing by “skeptics” on a regular basis. Everyone “advocated for science.” It is meaningless to distinguish her in that sense, and it makes a mockery of the notion of skepticism to do so.

    My point, again, is that she was ignoring the misleading nature of the graph and the inaccuracy of the graph. She did actually acknowledge that independent analyses validate Karl et al., and I made a comment giving her kudos for having done so. But she promoted Rose’s article, which in defiance of the standards of investigative journalism, didn’t mention that important caveat. And she even when further to respond by noting that Rose is an “award-winning” investigative journalist? Really? She’s going to respond to clear indications of his flaunting the principles of investigative journalism by using an appeal to authority? In the climate debate? From the “skeptic” side? Really?

    You have dipped your toe into the waters of honest-to-god skepticism by suggesting at the edges of holding a single standard against both “sides” in the debate. But I fear you have failed to follow through in this instance.

    There is no need to “pretend not to understand” my insinuation. I’m not “insininuating” anything. I am saying straight out that Judith is acting as an advocate here, not for “science” in some generic sense, but for a particular view of the science and for a particular, and desired set of policy outcomes and responses. She is being a science advocate. And I have <iino problem with that and have long argued that no one else should either. It is a basic part of the nature of how humans think. Scientist-advocacy is important, IMO. The problems arise when scientists advocate by presenting arguments that ignore uncertainty and which present only one side of issues and ignore uncertainty. That is, effectively, what Rose’s article does. In and of itself, it isn’t the act of doing so which bothers me as it is when people fail to be accountable for correcting course when the nature of them having done so becomes clear.

    So here is your chance.

  73. Marco says:

    “The question is what is the % normally used by NOAA.”

    No it isn’t. If you compared to IPCC, you must use the same comparison! Then it doesn’t matter what your organizational standard is. I did find some papers from NOAA that use p<0.1 for statistically significant (one even with Tom Karl on it, from 1993), but again, it would still not matter.

    "By definition and convention. Statistically significant means a result is unlikely due to chance."

    No and yes. There is no definition that says only p<0.05 is statistically significant. By convention it has become 0.05 *in many fields*, and likely because Fisher mentioned it a few times, selecting it (apparently) primarily because it is so close to the 2*SD value and 1-in-20 sounds pretty good. But he clearly was also aware of the many shortcomings of this arbitrary value, much more than all those scientists who have gone on p-hacking excercizes, just to get something that was "statistically significant".

  74. Joshua says:

    angech –

    Consider that the lack of accountability was bad enough that even Mosher pointed out that Judith failing to address the inaccuracy of the graph was a problem. That was like Budweiser’s commercial at the Superbowl noting the anti-immigrant prejudice the founders had to overcome:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ad-meter/2017/02/05/boycottbudweiser-debate-getting-super-bowl-treatment/97531390/

  75. Joshua,

    Consider that the lack of accountability was bad enough that even Mosher pointed out that Judith failing to address the inaccuracy of the graph was a problem.

    There was also a comment where Mosher told Roger Pielke Sr to STFU. It appears to have been moderated.

  76. Joshua says:

    angech –

    ==} I think she has always advocated for science so I will pretend not to understand your insinuation. Yes she is an activist, just like the rest of us. {==

    Sorry, but this just demands some more ranting.

    Seriously, such a statement looks to me like the hallmark of “skepticism.” You say that Judith is “just like the rest of us” but you elevate her advocacy above that of many other people by considering it scientifically pure.

    What is the scientific basis on which you make such a distinction? How it is based in any attempt to make an objective argument? You do not present a basis by which I can understand how you’re making such a distinction.

    It looks to me that you are merely elevating your assessment of her “advocacy” because her perspectives in interpreting the uncertainties related to climate change jibe with your own. Thus, her advocacy goes from being issue- and policy-advocacy to being pure science-advocacy, as if such a things was even practically possible (given the built-in biases in how we all approach reasoning, and in particular possible in a highly polarized area, and in particular possible among people who are heavily identified in a polarized area.

    Sheece.

  77. Joshua says:

    Marco –

    ==} No it isn’t. If you compared to IPCC, you must use the same comparison! {==

    Even I can understand that. It’s interesting to see so many people who are far more capable of statistical reasoning than myself are failing to address this problem with Bates’ argument head on.

  78. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    ==} There was also a comment where Mosher told Roger Pielke Sr to STFU. It appears to have been moderated. {==

    Just to clarify, the reason why I think that Mosher asking for accountability from Judith isn’t because of the context of views on climate change, but because of Mosher’s long history of white-knighting on behalf of dame Judith. I haven’t noticed that he has bent over backwards for a long time to defend against twisted logic on RPSr.’s part – as he has with Judith. So him telling RPSr. to STFU because RPSr. disagrees with him isn’t remotely surprising to me. Quite to the contrary – that seems BAU from Mosher from what I’ve seen.

    But Mosher asking Judith for accountability is one of those rare moments in the “climate change debate” where someone’s behavior undergoes a notable change.

  79. Joshua says:

    err….”the reason I think that Mosher asking for accountability from Judith is notable isn’t because of the context of [differing] views on climate change….

  80. izen says:

    Repetition is apparently a key part of good communication; so,
    This is not about the detail of the process. While it may appear to be about a failure of Karl et al to conform to the pretty colored boxes and blue arrows in Bates schema of data integrity, or the statistical confidence interval adopted for comparison with older data that is just the surface narrative.

    Some on the science side are responding as if that narrative is about the accuracy of the result.
    The Original Rose piece and the repeats at Daily Caller and Breibart plus the comments make it clear that the narrative is in support of a different underlying plot, or alternative reality.
    One in which the scientists have intentionally, maliciously and deceitfully put their thumb on the scales to produce a result for political expediency.

    The whistlblower has not revealed procedual shortcomings that could alter the accuracy of the results. He has provided the –
    Smoking gun, final nail in the coffin, final link in the chain, the paper trail, the undeniable proof…etc, that not just this science showing warming but by implication ALL such science is just a conspiracy.

    Discussing why data is processed, or how meaningless the data management flow charts are, just confirms to the conspiracists that scientists distort data, therefore are guilty.

    There are two world-views in contradiction. One thinks that the best way to see if Karl et al is accurate (or politically biased) is to improve the measurements and data processing to see if K15 matches reality.
    The other thinks that the best way to see if K15 is politically biased (or accurate?) is that records of internal discussions and private emails will reveal the details of the plot by the conspirators of how they weighted the results and their political motivation for doing it.

    Failure to find such evidence will be a warning of how clever and extensive the conspiracy is, even reality seems to be colluding…(grin)

  81. Joshua says:

    izen –

    I agree with your 2:18.

    ==> Failure to find such evidence will be a warning of how clever and extensive the conspiracy is, even reality seems to be colluding…(grin) ==>

    Indeed.

    This is about repeating accusations of fraud because doing so is self-reinforcing.

    Presenting counterarguments, from the perspective that somehow this is about argumentation is pointless. Actually, it’s less than pointless, because in the very act of presenting counterarguments, the accusations of fraud just get that much more reinforced. Counterarguments simply cannot be acknowledged.

    Scanning CE for responses to the misleading nature of Rose’s graph doesn’t show me that any of the “skeptic” discussants take it head on. We can see dismissals that the graph was irrelevant. We can see defenses such as Judith pointing out that Rose is an award-winning investigative journalist.

    The master of this technique is Kellyanne Conway. NEVER acknowledge a counterargument. Simply repeat unsupported “alternative facts” and use anything said in reaction as a way to steer the convo back to how admirable and strong and protective and successful and not-politically correct “this president” is. And don’t forget to say “this president” as much as possible, because doing so reinforces just how “presidential” he is in his behavior.

  82. Joshua says:

  83. JCH says:

    What does NOAA use?

    When responding to a paper that uses 90%, I suspect that NOAA usually uses 90%. When responding to a paper that used 99%, I suspect NOAA would usually use 99%.

    Being thick as a brick is not skepticism.

  84. John Randall says:

    Rose further shows his confusion about baselines with the note near the origin of his graph: “0 represents 14 C, the world average temperature.” 14 C happens to be NASA/GISTemp’s average world temperature over its 1951-1980 baseline. Today’s average is about 15 C. Rose has unwittingly misused three baselines. Claiming that today’s average is 14 C fits with his claim that there has been no global warming.

  85. JCH says:

    But Mosher asking Judith for accountability is one of those rare moments in the “climate change debate” where someone’s behavior undergoes a notable change. …

    As the positive PDO phase heatwave continues, and it is continuing (JAN rocked and FEB is rollin’), I suspect we are not far from the rather obvious scientific impossibility of maintaining the lukewarming diversion.

  86. Willard says:

    > Well, of course there is. The audit never ends.

  87. Joshua says:

    This is interesting. From Judith’s latest post:

    She responds to criticisms of this statement:

    –snip–
    ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out […]’
    –snip–

    By saying:

    ==> Verbiage used by David Rose is not the key issue here. ==>

    Except that was a quote of Bates by Rose, not Rose’s “verbiage.”

    I have asked Judith to respond to Nick Stokes’ comments with respect to Bates’ assertion (and Rose’s quotation of that assertion) that “good data from buoys was thr[own] out.”

  88. Willard says:

    Damn spam filter:

    BarryW’s mindprobing, peddling, and JAQing off doesn’t counter my point that Zeke’s article was about David Rose‘s claim, not JohnB‘s, contrary to BarryW’s “all about this” innuendo.

    Zeke’s post wasn’t “all about this,” BarryW. It was about the fact that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups. This undermines the claim that data has been manipulated.

    This is why Judy’s dismissing David Rose’s verbiage as mere verbiage.

    This is why she insists on the process.

    Playing the INTEGRITY ™ card while washing one’s hands after handing out a story to a yellow journalist is a thing of beauty.

    Please, BarryW, do continue.

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837099

    But RC moderation.

  89. Joshua says:

    I responded to Barry’s conspiracy theories about why Zeke doesn’t mention Bates’ name, but doubt it will pass RC Judith’s moderation.

  90. Willard says:

    On a more serious note:

  91. Jim Hunt says:

    I’m languishing on Judy’s cutting room floor also:

    “No answer!” has been her stern reply thus far.

  92. Barry Woods says:

    Hi Joshua / Willard – no conspiracies please, just an observation of the Guardian and Carbon Brief journalism. (not the science)

    The David Rose article (in his words/opinion) is about a ‘whistleblower’ Dr John Bates, a principal scientist at NOAA,and a former AGU board member ( a very credible witness) the Mail on Sunday leads with a captioned photo of Dr John Bates (looking very serious) and mentions Dr John Bates by name 23 times.. yet neither Guardian/Carbon Brief mentions Dr John Bates by name, and focus on Rose.. Doesn’t this make them look just a little bit partisan/silly in what they choose/don’t choose to convey to their readers?

    What may be more interesting – than who is right/wrong (Karl/Bates) about data archival and a broken computer, replicability, etc is the politics. Previously the house science committee raised questions about the Karl paper and were rebuffed by NOAA. There is now no longer an Obama administration, but a Trump administration (that has a ‘certain view’ on scientist polliticised conduct (in their view) Now from their perspective a ‘whistle-blower’ (a credible scientist from NOAA) has come forward about those events, and apparently conforming their opinion, so how the house science committee react at their next meeting may be interesting?

    see their press release and timeline.
    https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

    https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NOAA%20Karl%20Study%20One-Pager.pdf

    Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
    “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.  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.  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.  I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

    “Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn.  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.  The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

    —————————–

    regardless whether anyone agrees with Lamar Smith. I don’t think this story will go away very quickly.

  93. Barry,

    no conspiracies please, just an observation of the Guardian and Carbon Brief journalism. (not the science)

    Some of us think that it is ultimately the science that is important.

    However, the information provided in article is quite revealing:

    Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff.

    Seems Bates has provided ample evidence to suggest that he struggles to maintain professionalism with colleagues.

  94. Barry Woods says:

    That is interesting, but might the republican on that committee perceive, that as demoting a scientist because of conflict with his boss, who wants to push boundaries, vs maintaining standards. I’m not saying that is the case, but how will the Republican senators perceive this?
    I guess we will see.

  95. Barry,

    I’m not saying that is the case, but how will the Republican senators perceive this?

    Ideally, their views (and the views of any politician) should be irrelevant in this context. Some, however, seem to be looking forward to the politicization of science.

  96. Jim Hunt says:

    Barry – It surely cannot have escaped even your “snow blind” eyes that The Grauniad, Carbon Brief, ATTP and yours truly hail from the once Great Britain?

    For further information please read this comment carefully then and click through to the helpfully provided PDF:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217736

    Now, in some words I picked up off ex Prof. Judy’s cutting room floor, [Mod: redacted]

    Thanks you for your attention.

  97. Joshua says:

    Barry –

    =={ no conspiracies please, }==

    Ok. But you asked the following:

    =={ Why do you think Zeke can’t be bothered to mention Dr John Bates, a Principal scientist at NOAA (and former AGU board member) by name. Did he just forget, or disclosing his name, etc, might just make the reader think a little. }==

    Hmmm.

    So since you aren’t implying a conspiracy, then I guess the answer to your question must not afterall be that Zeke is trying to hide the fact that Bates is a highly qualified climate scientist, formerly with a high-ranking position at NOAA. I mean my guess is that ‘prolly some 90% of the readers of his piece have no idea of who Bates is and what his qualifications are and so I would have thought that Zeke, being the duplicitous activist-scientist that he is, thought he could get away with his treachery.

    Of course, even if it were true, then Zeke’s downfall would have been in underestimating the mad investigative skilz of folks like yourself, who would never let him get away with it – in self-sacrificing dedication for advancing (non-political) “science-advocacy,” of course.

    But since you’re not promoting a conspiracy theory,..and you aren’t suggesting the conspiratorial explanation that I was thinking would be likely, you must have another answer in mind for your “when did Zeke stop beating his wife” question – so please do opine.

  98. Barry Woods says:

    Look at LaHood’s comment from the press release. In their minds I do think they are genuinely believing they are standing up for science, and they see politicisation at NOAA.

    To be simplistic, both ‘sides’ the committee/NOAA seem to see the “other” as the bad guy, politicising for an agenda, and both ‘sides’ see themselves as standing for science. Problem is how to de-escalate that, and get some trust back.. I do think LaHood is genuine in his comments (which is not to say he could not be wrong), but he THINKS he is standing up for scientific integrity, maybe there is someway NOAA could help him believe they are too?

    Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.):
    “I applaud Dr. Bates’s efforts in uncovering the truth of this data manipulation, and I commend Chairman Smith and the Science Committee for conducting rigorous oversight on behalf of the American people.  Transparent and faithful execution of the scientific process, especially where taxpayer dollars are involved, is crucial to ensure that our policies are based on sound science and not on politically predetermined outcomes.”

  99. Joshua says:

    Barry –

    =={ I’m not saying that is the case, but how will the Republican senators perceive this?
    I guess we will see. }==

    My guess is that the Republican senators will be loathe to attribute any such motivations to Karl, and will bend over backwards to investigate to make sure that this “whistleblower” incident isn’t at least partially explainable by a disgruntled employee carrying resentment forward stemming from professional disagreements.

    Yes, we’ll just have to see. I mean only a very cynical person might think that politicians would align themselves on these issues on the basis of politics and ideological orientation as opposed to objective examination of science and evidence.

  100. In their minds I do think they are genuinely believing they are standing up for science, and they see politicisation at NOAA.

    They may well do, but politicians getting involved in science is essentially the definition of politicising science.

  101. izen says:

    @-“Seems Bates has provided ample evidence to suggest that he struggles to maintain professionalism with colleagues.”

    Ample evidence of the intolerance of the climate change claque. Bates is clearly a Martyr. A noble whistle-blower exposing politically expedient scientific fraud. Defending Truth, Justice and Data Integrity against the consensus group-think. Demoted by the Arch-Chief of the cabal because he would not recite the climate change creed… a Saint in the making!
    The Blessed Judy must hope for canonisation…

    I wonder which climate record (satellite?) John Bates regards as most definitive. Since K15, 2016 was a record year for more than temperature. Of course this well has been poisoned.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/category/extreme-events

    (Anyone else having trouble with the main menu on NOAA site?)

  102. Jim Hunt says:

    [ROFL Mod] The cutting room floors are busy today for some strange reason!

  103. Trying to keep the peace, for a while at least 😉

  104. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    =={ They may well do, but politicians getting involved in science is essentially the definition of politicising science. {==

    You seem to forget that politicizing science only happens when you disagree with the opinions being advanced.

  105. Willard says:

    > how will the Republican senators perceive this?

    Exactly. Hence Judy handing the story to a yellow journalist.

    It’s not science, but it’s important.

    Cue to INTEGRITY ™.

  106. Jim Hunt says:

    Some more Lulz to be had here perhaps? My no doubt vain attempt to educate the House Science Committee about the facts of (A?)GW?

  107. You seem to forget that politicizing science only happens when you disagree with the opinions being advanced.

    Indeed, I do keep forgetting that.

  108. izen says:

    Climate.gov
    Site under maintenance

    Climate.gov is temporarily offline for routine maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience. We anticipate being back online on by Feb. 7

  109. Willard says:

    Speaking of not politicizing science, the pingbacks at Judy’s are fascinating.

  110. verytallguy says:

    Barry W

    I do think they are genuinely believing they are standing up for science

    Yes. I also believe in the tooth fairy, the abominable snowman and that the devil is ready to repent.

    Or in other words, if you want a serious response, be serious.

  111. Joshua says:

    =={ Climate.gov is temporarily offline for routine maintenance. }==

    Yeah. Sure. “Routine” maintenance. I bet. Methinks Climategate III* is likely a better explanation. Maybe Barry could ask Zeke why the website is down. I might be prone to thinking it’s a conspiracy, but Barry clearly isn’t a conspiratorial thinker.

    * Just as a matter of curiosity, how many Climategate III’s can there be? I know that there have been at least three Climategate II’s. Does the number of Climategates at any particular level grow exponentially?

  112. jacksmith4tx says:

    Willard,
    Those aren’t just pingbacks, they are infection vectors for a socially transmitted disease. The Carbon Brief had a good story on the effects of social media on the climate change debate recently.
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-the-climate-change-conversation-on-twitter-in-2016

  113. Willard says:

    Zeke dekes it:

    [ehak] I think Dr Curry is however saying it would change the trend

    [Nick] But she is wrong, and Peterson is right. It is a matter of elementary arithmetic.

    [Judy] Nick, the new ERSSTv5 paper finds a 0.07C difference.

    [Zeke] Judy, the change in ship-buoy differences in ERSSTv5 is not due to the choice to adjust the ships down to the buoys (vs. buoys up to the ships). Rather, its due to the use of a dynamic buoy-ship difference calculated for each month by comparing coincident ship and buoy measurements. This change reduces the average ship-buoy difference from the 0.12 C assumed by ERSSTv4 to 0.08 C. How this is applied (ships down by 0.08 C or buoys up by 0.08 C) would have zero effect on the resulting anomalies.

    Overheard: https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837228

  114. Jim Hunt says:

    Evenin’ all – I’ve just delivered a delightful supper prepared by Dan & Dan (op. cit.) to the denizens over at Judy’s. I wonder what they’ll make of it?

    In addition the lulz I mentioned above have developed further in a quite delightful fashion. I bring you this warming and educational nightcap created by an ad hoc team of celebrity international chefs for “warmists” around the planet:

    You have to keep clicking through to the very bottom of the virtual mug in order to experience the full benefit.

    Thank you and good night from May or May not land (op. cit.)

  115. Bernard J. says:

    jacksmith4tx at February 7, 2017 at 12:34 am, do you know if there’s any way to search the Carbonbrief map for specific users?

  116. jacksmith4tx says:

    Bernard,
    I didn’t see one on the Carbon Brief web site. You can zoom and pan the diagrams but no text searches. Maybe there is a way to do it from the original author’s web site. I would like to see that project continue now that climate science is under full assault from the alt-truth vigilantes.

  117. Marco says:

    Maybe I should have said it out loud yesterday: I was wondering about Bates’ strong attack on Karl, which so easily is shown to be untrue, and had considered some fall out between the two.

    And there you go, there apparently indeed was:
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/
    “Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.”

  118. Marco says:

    Barry, if the story of Rose was all about Bates, why did Rose larder it with graphs and claims that are easily and objectively shown to be untrue?

    Zeke did not mention Bates, because, as Zeke writes, he cannot comment on internal NOAA policies which may, or may not, have been violated. However, he can comment on the claims about the trustworthiness of *data*, which primarily are claims added by Rose. Zeke shows those claims do not withstand scrutiny, with the worst example Rose’s graph discussed in ATTP’s blogpost. Even the correction does little to actually correct anything, as it still does not show what Rose claims it shows.

  119. Phil says:

    Thanks to Willard and, indirectly, Zeke and Nick. It seemed to me that an obvious question was whether the 0.07C was the change from v4 to v5 or whether it was, as was claimed, a change caused solely by reversing the comparison. The notion that the two were synonymous should have been critically evaluated; and if I can see that, why can’t Curry ?

  120. Marco says:

    “…and if I can see that, why can’t Curry ?”

    That’s a rhetorical question, yes?

  121. Leto says:

    “By definition and convention. Statistically significant means a result is unlikely due to chance.”

    Angech, this is a complete misunderstanding of the very nature of statistical significance, though it is a common attitude among those with little or no statistical training. Statistics cannot tell us how likely something is due to chance, because that depends on the underlying physical reality that produced the numbers being analysed. Instead, it tells us something different: how likely a result would be in a fictional world where chance was the only player.

    If placebo A beats placebo B in a study of cancer, with a p-value of 0.049, what is the likelihood that the apparent superiority of A is due to chance?

  122. Leto,
    Thanks, I meant to come back and point that out, but got distracted.

  123. Willard says:

    PaulS is making his presence felt:

    In December 2015, Judith Curry presented testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, in a hearing timed to coincide with the Paris climate summit.

    In her testimony, which is clearly intended to influence policy, Curry includes a plot of UAH lower tropospheric temperatures. Now, no number was provided to indicate the version of UAH data shown, which is itself tantamount to misconduct as we’re learning here. However, by overlaying different versions it’s clear what’s shown is some variant of UAHv6. This is a dataset which has not even been peer reviewed (still to this date), let alone any of the other checks being talked about here. How does that fit in with the policy-relevant data integrity issues being discussed here?

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837346

    PaulS also links to Judy’s testimony.

    RELEASE ALL THE EMAILS!

  124. angech says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    “Barry – It surely cannot have escaped even your “snow blind” eyes that The Grauniad, Carbon Brief, ATTP and yours truly hail from the once Great Britain?”
    Making Great Britain great again? Sorry could not resist.
    Lived in England 2 years, almost stayed, lovely, lovely place.
    Joshua. “such a statement looks to me like the hallmark of “skepticism.” You say that Judith is “just like the rest of us” but you elevate her advocacy above that of many other people by considering it scientifically pure. What is the scientific basis on which you make such a distinction, how are you making such a distinction.”
    Judith was an AGW supporter, she found the science did not convince her. She is not a skeptic, she admits to uncertainty and wanting to know more. To me that is an important hallmark of a scientist. She advocates for openness and transparency and standards and science, much as most people here are wont to do as well.
    This post is about David Rose’s graph.
    Yes it is misleading.
    He is a journalist.
    He did not need to use it,but.
    It sells the story.
    Kick the graph as much as you want it is like the tar baby.
    When you stop struggling there may still be a briar patch to get out of.

  125. angech,
    I’m interested in why you decided to go all ballistic here. Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher and pretty well-informed about this topic. To call them “hypocrites” seems a bit over the top.

  126. angech says:

    [AT asked a question, Doc. I suggest you answer it. – W]

  127. angech says:

    ATTP, Nick and Steve are staunch advocates of AGW and good climate science. I am trying very hard not to antagonise or comment on Steve where I possibly can and will continue to try very hard but the agitation just got too much on this occasion.

  128. angech,
    Everyone gets agitated, so fair enough, but from what I’ve what I’ve seen, what they’re both saying is perfectly reasonable.

  129. izen says:

    @-angtech
    “Yes it is misleading.
    He is a journalist.
    He did not need to use it,but.
    It sells the story.”

    What IS ‘the Story’ that Rose is using a misleading graph to sell.
    Could you summarise what the story is from your POV?

  130. JCH says:

    It’s likely that Judith Curry saw the graph and said not a word to Rose. Her hand is in everything that has happened here. Why wouldn’t it be in on making the graph.

    She’s about as pure as the yellow and brown snow inside a barnyard.

  131. Willard says:

    > what they’re both saying is perfectly reasonable.

    More than that – Moshpit won that thread (edited for clarity):

    There is no artificial warming in GHCN induced by latitude shift. That was debunked long ago. You can show this several ways.

    In the ISTI database and in the BE database there are 10’s of thousands of stations that are NOT IN GHCN. Judith Misses this point. Bates Misses this point, Ross misses this point and you [Sir Rud] miss this point. You can, and we have, done versions of the land surface that AVOID GHCN ENTIRELY.

    Guess what?

    The answer is the same.

    Choose any subset of GHCN you like. Choose all NON GHCN stations. Choose only rural stations. Choose only stations not at airports. Choose multiple randomly selected stations. Choose A stratified sample (equal amounts from latitude bins). Choose a stratified sample from Every different land class (crops, grassland, wooded, bareland, etc.)

    Guess what?

    The answer is the same.

    Now we are seeing that the argument is that Surface temperature must be handled by the CDR process, a process designed for Non real time Satellite data. The UAH CDR is an example I have pointed to many times. Yes it is document. The documentation is crappy, but it passed Bates Process.

    Do you guys get that? Bates Process doesn’t care about the quality of the data one wit. It cares only about checking boxes. And worse the UAH CDR it’s so out of date it’s too funny. But since CDRs are now the only currency that counts, I’ll ask you to provide CDRs or similar for your claims.

  132. Phil says:

    “…and if I can see that, why can’t Curry ?”

    That’s a rhetorical question, yes?

    Well, it could be a question for angech and other fans of Curry. Zeke and Nick comments seem to show her to be unskeptically accepting a certain narrative and then PaulS seems to show her exhibiting the grossest of double standards. These are not difficult scientific issues; they are just issues of balance and integrity. Perhaps that explains why angech got agitated ?

  133. Willard says:

    Getting agitated can be a Good Thing. Just like responding to contrarian concerns can be. Here’s another example, where a new Denizen disputed the fact that audits never end:

    After all these years, I get to clarify my domain name. Fancy that.

  134. Jim Hunt says:

    Shock News! My alter ego and I are proud to announce a highly successful first test of our previously top secret David Rose BS detector:

    Initial feedback includes a request to tune it to KellyAnne Conway next.

  135. Just because I was bored:

    Someone forgot to tell the arctic to wait for Karl to bust the pause

    I was going to add text and arrow for “Curry jumps shark” but there would have been too many arrows and the graph too cluttered.

  136. Jim Hunt says:

    Fame at last for Snow White! Not only the 21st best Global Warming blog on the web:

    but also (since Kevin mentions it) now followed by Axel Schweiger himself!!

  137. Jim,
    Mine doesn’t even make the list, but with WUWT being second, that’s maybe a good thing 🙂 (Skeptical Science is top, to be fair).

  138. Marco says:

    Willard, thanks for that Mosher quote.

    It hits the nail on the head, but I don’t expect too many people at Climate Etc to change their mind.

  139. Marco says:

    Hmmm…
    http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/07/stories/1060049630
    “The federal climate scientist hailed by conservatives as a whistleblower for allegedly revealing manipulated global warming data said yesterday he was actually calling out a former colleague for not properly following agency standards for research.”

    On Curry’s blog:
    “we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation”
    and according to Rose he even claimed
    “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”
    Bates is also quoted as saying
    “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

    Sorry, Bates, this can only be interpreted as calling Karl out for inappropriately manipulating data (and we know that especially that last point is factually untrue).
    Oh, and hilariously, this last quote also contradicts something Tom Peterson pointed out, in that Bates insisted on using data known to be wrong, just because there was a CDR in place for that (yep, let’s throw out the good data and keep the bad).

  140. Marco – Bates appears not to have thought through the consequences of his ‘whistleblower’ journey or didn’t realize Rose would quote him. Being asked to back up his words seems to have put him off whatever game he had -at least that’s my sense of it if that EENews article is correct and he’s now trying to walk back the claims of data manipulation.

    Does anyone know if Bates puts whole packs of chewing gum into his mouth at once?

  141. Joshua says:

    Marco –

    The one caveat there is that I wouldn’t put it beyond Rose to misquote Bates.

    The contention that somehow separates (bates’ repeated accusations of) “thumbs on the scales” from “manipulating the data” is ridiculous, however. Doesn’t even reach the level of plausible deniability.

  142. Joshua says:

    I doubt this will see the light of day over at Judith’s:

    Joshua | February 7, 2017 at 11:20 am |
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    And of course, this is good also.

    =={ He said he would accept such an invitation, but cautioned scientists against advocating policy. }==

    So he’s going to testify for the committee which is focused on writing policy in order to avoid advocating policy.

    Looks like his definition of advocacy is similar to Judith’s in that it applies only to those who disagree with him about policy.

  143. Willard says:

    I left two comments on a French contrarian blog that pingbacked Judy’s concerns, first and foremost because Frenchies have an awful rendition of “hockey stick.”

    ClimateBall in French sounds strange.

  144. BBD says:

    But this makes perfect sense to me 🙂

    Deux jours et voilà déjà que Bates pédale en marche arrière.

  145. Willard says:

    There’s no direct translation for “backpedaling” in French, BBD. I suspect it’s because L’impossible n’est pas Français.

    Did I ever tell you of the time Louise Mensch tried to womansplain to me that she commanded French better than I over the Tweeter? Twas almost one year ago:

    She deleted her tweets. Sad.

  146. Lars Karlsson says:

    Marco,
    Here is a full-length version of the E&E News article.
    Note that Bates still claims that Karl et al put a “thumb on the scale — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort 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.”
    He still haven’t provided any evidence (fingerprint?) of that thumb, though.

  147. Lars Karlsson says:

    This is also relevant (same E&E News article as above):

    Whether the research was published to influence the Paris climate talks is a moot point, said Andrew Light, a senior member of the State Department’s climate talks negotiating team in 2015. He said the talks had already been underway for about four years when the paper was published and that 188 nations were relying on a tremendous amount of research to support their goal of reducing humans’ carbon emissions to slow the warming of the planet. They had also already crafted proposed reductions by the time the research was published, he said.

    “I never heard it discussed once, let alone this one NOAA report, discussed in Paris, the run-up to Paris or anything after Paris, so this is really just an incredibly bizarre claim,” Light said.

  148. Willard says:

    I’ll be damned – there’s a word for “backpedaling,” i.e. rétropédalage.

    My invitation to comment may have reached its breaking point:

  149. Marco says:

    Lars, that second quote is especially relevant related to Bates’ comment about why this was supposedly “rushed”.

    Maybe Bates should take his own advice into account and be aware of his own biases (especially considering he was demoted by Karl)…

  150. Joshua says:

    willard –

    I used Google translate and learned a new, wonderous expression: “carbocentrists.”

    I see that Benoit is ever respectful, otherwise I might have confused that term for being somewhat less than respectful.

    .

  151. Joshua says:

    –snip–
    Climate Home, a nonprofit site based in London that offers news and analysis, also weighed in on one of the central contentions of Mr. Rose’s article, that the publication of the NOAA paper had “duped” policy makers into adopting the Paris accord. The site contacted representatives to the talks from 10 countries; none said that the paper had any influence.
    –snip–

  152. paulski0 says:

    Heh, thanks Willand.

    On the timing thing, it occurred to me that the main determinant of when K15 was published was the final internal approval of ERSSTV4, which seems to have involved about a two year process. Bates seems to be claiming credit for that process so it seems to me if there’s one person responsible for the timing of K15… it’s Bates himself.

  153. Phil says:

    Lars,

    Note that Bates still claims that Karl et al put a “thumb on the scale …”

    That’s not my reading of it. The E&E article appears to be directly quoting Curry’s blog, telling their readers what Bates said originally

    Bates laid out his claims, which are largely technical and related to the sharing of data, on the blog run by Judith Curry,

    There doesn’t appear (to me) to a statement to the effect that Bates reiterated those claims in the interview with E&E.

  154. Magma says:

    How exactly does one ‘walk back’ a 4000 word blog post and simultaneous newspaper interview that amount to a highly public hatchet job on former colleagues?

    “Oops, my bad.”
    “What I meant to say was…”
    “Why so serious?”
    “You wanna know how I got these scars?”

  155. Joshua says:

    angech –

    =={ Judith was an AGW supporter, she found the science did not convince her. }==

    While I understand why this might suggest some kind of scientific purity, perhaps even shift the odds a bit – in the end it amounts to backwards reasoning. I could give you names of people who have moved in the opposite direction, and whom you would call “alarmists” (and I might even agree with you about that, or even more interestingly, “hypocritical” (anyone come to mind?).

    You are trying to devine deep characteristics from superficial signals – surely a problematic mechanism for a skeptic.

    Ideally, we should look more deeply at the product, not infer something about the product from observing superficial configurations. We could just as easily say that someone’s trajectory over time shifted their ideological orientation. Would that guarantee that they approach issues from an objective standpoint, and not one of tribalism? Consider ex-smokers who are the least inclined to consider of the rights of smokers… the phrase “the zeal of the convert.”

    So let’s look at the product. Judith testifies before Congress at the behest of Republican politicians, and then decries the destruction caused by “advocate scientists” who reach beyond the limits of the expertise to influence policy development. And when she does so, she does things like speaking about the importance of recognizing uncertainty even as she talks about a “hiatus” in “global warming” without pointing out that she’s actually talking about a relatively short-term slowdown in a longer term rise in surface temps only. She doesn’t even mention the vast uncertainties that OHC add to a conclusion of whether there has been a “hiatus” in “global warming.”

    =={ She is not a skeptic, }==

    You say she’s not a skeptic. Others might say she is a skeptic. I say we can’t say, because the skeptic is in the eyes of the beholder.

    =={ she admits to uncertainty and wanting to know more. }==

    Which distinguishes her from who, exactly? The vast majority of scientific experts in the field of climate science? I don’t think so.

    =={ To me that is an important hallmark of a scientist. }==

    I agree. The hallmark of a scientist is someone who is very careful to control for biases by applying the scientific method. It is someone who carefully quantifies and qualifies evidence to avoid making conclusions about cause-and-effect with controlling for various influences. And I can point to countless times that Judith has failed to do as I just described.

    =={ She advocates for openness and transparency and standards and science, much as most people here are wont to do as well. }==

    Well that’s fine. But again, that is at the surface level. That you raise her advocacy in a way that elevates it above those who disagree with her seems quite suspicious to me, because it so happens to coincide with your opinions about the evidence. Can we generalize more, to say that those who you see as advocating for openness and transparency are disproportionately distributed among those whose opinions about the science align with your own? If so, could that just be coincidental? I suppose, but I’m skeptical (you might even say dubious) about that. Is it possible that those aligned on one side of this debate are inherently more loyal to the principles of openness and transparency? Perhaps, but IMO, the evidence we can look at on how people reason suggests that the underlying factors that influence and bias our reasoning is not distributed on the basis of alignment on particular, polarized issues. In fact, what the evidence shows is that identity-orientation, psychology, and cognition show that the biases are part of the human condition, and not likely distributed in proportions that vary across groups.

    =={ This post is about David Rose’s graph.
    Yes it is misleading. }==

    And Judith clearly failed to call out that misleading graph. She has repeatedly failed, over an extended period of time, to call out Rose for inaccuracies, even as she has continued to collaborate with him. This has happened as she has continued to be quite selective in how she identifies and problematizes such phenomena of bias and “scientist activism” over that same time period.

    I don’t think that singles her out as unique. What I think is that it puts her in the same boat with pretty much everyone else in the sense that everyone has the same sorts of tendencies. What I am focusing on is her resistance to acknowledging her own biases and to your lack of skepticism regarding what she does.

    =={ He is a journalist.
    He did not need to use it,but.
    It sells the story.
    Kick the graph as much as you want it is like the tar baby. }==

    But that is only one part of the issue that I started discussing with you, so bringing it back to that part leaves the other unresolved.

    =={ When you stop struggling there may still be a briar patch to get out of. }==

    What makes you think I’m struggling?

  156. JCH says:

    Can you imagine what President Donald Trump would be tweeting right now if he was the one who demoted JJ Bates? Lol.

  157. izen says:

    #Loser Bates uses lying media to spread fake news about boss. Sad.

  158. paulski0 says:

    Mosher appears to be spamming the thread at Curry’s now. Amusing times.

  159. Steven Mosher says:

    Yep

  160. Joshua says:

    Kellyanne Conway made a statement.

    “This whole whistleblower situation shows that the president is strong and manly, and that the lying press that is weak on terrorism is so unfair. Paid protesters. Fake news. He is a great and highly successful businessman and it is because of his great leadership that this whistleblower came forward to save the American public and keep us safe from fake global warming. Islamic terrorism. The whistleblower that came forward because the president is a very successful businessman who is protecting the American public from Islamic terrorism and ISIS has proves that Hillary ran a bad campaign and is responsible for this scientific fraud just like she was behind the 50 million illegals who voted against the president. Paid protesters. Fake news. Islamic terrorism. ”

  161. Steven Mosher says:

    There’s an argument to be made for better process or improving process, but Bates and Curry are not making it in a way I find acceptable or effective. The way they go about it

    A) The science gets tarnished by folks who go a bridge too far
    B) The value of process gets tarnished, by the other side.

    It’s an all lose approach

    Ask me how I know?

    Been there. done that. Hopefully learned a lesson.

  162. Joshua says:

    =={ Mosher appears to be spamming the thread at Curry’s now. Amusing times. }==

    I just had to order a new irony meter. My old one doesn’t have sufficient capacity.

  163. Jim Hunt says:

    Steve – Since you’re around, would you mind passing an opinion on our latest innovation in wetware?

    Joshua – Have you got your irony meter handy yet?

    I wonder how they’re getting along with it over at ex Prof. Judy’s? Time to take a look!

  164. Steven Mosher says:

    You are weird Joshua.

    Consider an alternative explanation.

    You only see irony because you assume you were correct in all the past cases where you attacked Curry and I defended.

    That make sense to you because you thought you were always right.

    For me the irony is this. We agree on the present case, but you still refuse to go back
    and look at prior cases where you also should have agreed with me.

  165. Steven Mosher says:

    There is another point here

    At the same time folks demand a Norman Bates process for data ( dead data is best )
    They also criticize papers for no using the latest data — see Anthiny watts criticize of Zeke’s paper.

  166. Steven Mosher says:

    “Steve – Since you’re around, would you mind passing an opinion on our latest innovation in wetware?”

    Hmm.

    I travel in many circles. Mastering Willard’s 사투리 was pretty easy because of our Wahlverwandtschaften. I’m currently working on the Supreme Dark Lord’s 사투리.
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/

    still trying to decode your universe
    dont help I like puzzles.

  167. Jim Hunt says:

    Thanks for the follow Steve. Favour returned

    Some of my online profiles state “Surrealist programmer”. Is that useful information?

    I’m off to the land of Nod. TTFN

  168. JCH says:

    Next up… Bates’ little yarn about Darth Karl’s intentional scuttling of the computer… he apparently crushed it with his thumb so maybe the FBI can find the thumb print…

    … So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. I finally decided to document what I had found using the climate data record maturity matrix approach. I did this and sent my concerns to the NCEI Science Council in early February 2016 and asked to be added to the agenda of an upcoming meeting. I was asked to turn my concerns into a more general presentation on requirements for publishing and archiving. Some on the Science Council, particularly the younger scientists, indicated they had not known of the Science requirement to archive data and were not aware of the open data movement.They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.

    So are these guys/gals who worked on the computer the next whistle blowers? At CargoCult Etc., it was NOAA whistle blowerS. There’s more to come.

  169. Willard says:

    > There’s more to come

    Doc can smell it too. He’s in good form at Judy’s:

    Tony B, Jim Hunt is an expert on never being 100 % correct.

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837171

    This other one is even better:

    Sophistry Nick.
    And possibly sloppy maths in this case?

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837187

    Even better:

    If the e mails were clear, mine would be, they would be released.
    No privacy concerns clear my name.
    They refuse to release them. There is dirt there.
    They will be forced to release them now.
    Whistleblower evidence of malfeasance. So it will all come out . 8 months max.
    Have some slow popcorn JCH

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837192

    I await your last ten years of professional emails sent to Wikileaks by the end of the week, Doc.

  170. JCH says:

    Have some slow popcorn JCH

    Best three ambush busts in history:

    Climategate 1

    Climategate 2

    Climategate 3

  171. Willard says:

    > Bates seems to be claiming credit for that process so it seems to me if there’s one person responsible for the timing of K15… it’s Bates himself.

    This hypothesis seems quite plausible to me, PaulS – this ClimateBall episode seems to be all about Bates. There’s a bit of Karl, but the real hero is Bates. Karl does matter of course, e.g.:

    John- Thank you for doing this. Your experience with inappropriate behavior by Tom Karl, Tom Peterson and Peter Thorne at NCDC is consistent with my experiences with the CCSP 1.1 Report. If you have not read these, you might find them informative

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-836536

    But as you know it’s all about INTEGRITY ™, and John’s selling exactly that.

    How could we ever have any INTEGRITY ™ if we can’t produce data using John’s favorite 20-steps program?

  172. Marco says:

    Aaaaand….Bates takes another step back without apologizing for originally strongly suggesting data tampering:
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended

    – However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
    “It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.” –

    Sorry, Bates, but in your letter on Curry’s site you strongly suggest Karl pushed people to make decisions that “increased warming”, and thus suggested malicious data handling.

  173. Who needs honesty and facts when dishonest insults will do?

  174. izen says:

    Formalist Q: How can you have confidence in the results if you cannot guarantee the INTEGRITY of the data ?
    Empiricist A: We check them against reality.

  175. Jim Hunt says:

    Willard – I have to admit that this caused me much mirth:

    I have a warped sense of humour however, so YMMV,

  176. Jim Hunt says:

    JCH – I know that I’m biased, and that I have a warped sense of humour, but as #Climategate ambushes go this beats the cr@p out of yours:

    Beta Testing Snow White’s Alternative Fact Detector

    IMHO. YMMV.

  177. Steven Mosher says:

    hmm.. Bates kinda reminds me of this

  178. Jim Hunt says:

    Steve (et al.)

    See Kevin Cowtan’s take on #Climategate2 in the Arctic:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#Feb-7

    Please feel free to read between the lines. BEST gets a mention. I hope I’m not being inaccurate! Anything you’d like added/amended? Assuming you’d like one, where should I link to?

    Would you guys like to do a “guest post”? Or a “guest para” like Kevin?

  179. JCH says:

    Aaaaand….Bates takes another step back without apologizing for originally strongly suggesting data tampering: … – Marco

    A long time ago the Professor JA Curry now Emeritus took a cheap swipe at somebody at CargoCult Etc. and I posted a version of this:

    Smear smear, smear smear, oh what a joy it is.

    And she actually took down the smear. At the time Willard put my comment up on Neverending Audit. But I would be shocked if she apologizes for this one.

  180. Joshua says:

    steven –

    =={ You only see irony because you assume you were correct in all the past cases where you attacked Curry and I defended. }==

    Perhaps. Or consider that Judith’s actions in this situation are entirely consistent with what’s she’s been doing for a loooooong time. Perhaps what has changed is not Judith’s actions but your perspective, because now you are at least indirectly being targeted by the same double-standard in Judith’s reasoning that I have long been pointing to at her website.

  181. Joshua says:

    At any rate, it’s fascinating to see that you’ve traded in your white night armor. As I’ve said, it’s relatively rare to see change in the climate wars.

    Although your methods of communication has remained consistent, as have your self-aggrandizement and self-absorption, at least now you’re able to see the weakness in Judith’s reasoning and her lack of accounting for her own biases.

    Amid the sameosameo, that’s a tiny point of interest.

  182. Willard says:

    Get a room, guys.

    Here’s another interesting testimony, this time from Tom Dayton.

    I was trained mostly as a scientist, but have always worked as a software engineer, and most recently for several years as a core member of a NASA Software Management Office. In over a decade of working on NASA software, I and my teammates always have consciously designed our software design, development, testing, and deployment processes to suit the particular and explicit goals/requirements/desirements of each particular project.

    For my desktop software for flight controllers monitoring and managing telemetry from crewed space vehicles (Shuttle, ISS, Orion, etc.), conception to final deployment certified for live use took years, because the risk of loss of human life was required to be kept very low. Despite that long and laborious total process, most of our releases before that final one went through very much abbreviated processes, because the goals of those preliminary releases included getting feedback quickly so we did not waste time on elaborate quality and archiving processes for releases that we were nearly certain would contain bugs that would be found almost immediately by the flight controllers who would try out those releases with fake or old telemetry.

    Most scientific projects are like my project’s preliminary releases. Part of their quality assurance is publishing the results for other scientists to evaluate and attempt to replicate. Spending a huge amount of time on internal quality processes usually is much less efficient and effective than using that time for public review. Each organization, and ultimately each project team within that organization, must make its own decision about how much process is appropriate. It sounds like Karl et al. made a completely reasonable judgment, whereas Bates never would have survived in my NASA Software Management Office because of his lack of consideration of context.

    Strange bunnies we have at Eli’s.

  183. izen says:

    How far could Karl’s thumb tip the Scales.?

    The start and end points of the temperature series were well constrained. The total trend was not open to very much alteration.

    But the variation of that trend within the time period was open to some adjustment. Land based observations had limited options, all the data records are in close agreement. Inclusion of the Arctic would help a little in raising the trend in the latter part of the record to smooth out the pause, but with limited effect.

    The best option was to use the discrepancies between the bucket, engine room and buoy SST records to selectively confirm the shift in trend variation. The purported aim, to reduce the earlier trend rate (70-90) and increase the later trend (90-2012) to minimise or eliminate the hiatus.

    None of this manipulation could have any significant effect on the trend over the whole record, only on the short-term variation apparent in sections.

    Without this thumb on the record to remove the stasis in temperature for 15 years, the subsequent years after Karl et al (2015) would look like very dramatic Black Swan events. After a period of apparent stability the climate suddenly got a LOT warmer in just 2 years. Wiping out in a few months the gap between climate models and measurements. Without Karl to ameliorate the apparent discontinuities the global temperature jumped by an amount that should at least cause suspicion that a significant climate tipping point has been reached.

    With K15 at least the last 2 years of temps do not look quite so much like a profound qualitative shift in the climate. Although the sea ice record still hints…

  184. Willard says:

    But but but:

    David Rose is an award winning investigative journalist

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rose_(journalist)

    Who will you believe, Very Tall, a NAZI FAKE NEWS MACHINE or an expert in expert expertise?

  185. Pingback: Prior discovery – Stoat

  186. Joshua says:

    =={ David Rose is an award winning investigative journalist. }==

    Thanks God that “skeptics” never tolerate the fallacious appeal to authority.

  187. John Hartz says:

    Stefan Rahmstorf pulls no puches in his Real Climate post of today…

    Distortion? False information? Conspiracy theories? Hacked email? Climate scientists have known all this for decades. What can be learned from their rich experience with climate propaganda.

    The world is slowly waking up. “Post-truth” was declared the word of the year 2016 by the Oxford Dictionaries. Finally, people start to widely appreciate how dangerous the epidemic of fake news is for democracy.

    “Stir up hate, destroy discourse, make insane claims until no one can distinguish the most bizarre absurdity from the truth any more.”

    Thus the Austrian author Robert Misik aptly describes the strategy of right-wing populists.

    Some call it “alternative facts”. (Those are the convenient alternative to true facts.) Let’s simply call it propaganda.

    Fake news, hacked mail, alternative facts – that’s old hat for climate scientists by Stefan Rahmstorf, Real Climate, Feb 8, 2017

  188. JCH says:

    Thinking about Professor Emeritus Curry and an apology to Karl and Peterson and NOAA. I don’t think it can happen. Rose has the goods.

  189. Marco says:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

    Seems to indicate Bates takes yet another step back, although his claim this isn’t about Karl sounds rather hollow when you read the letter on Curry’s blog, where Karl is made into the big boogieman making supposedly questionable decisions and pressuring his co-authors.

  190. Lars Karlsson says:

    That Science piece (see Marco’s comment) really deflates the whole balloon.

    But why did Bates go to the Daily Mail and Rose if he merely wanted to “have a bigger discussion about how we ensure the quality of the data”?

  191. BBD says:

    VTG

    That bears highlighting / repeating 🙂

    Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as unreliable source:

    Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

    The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

    The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

  192. paulski0 says:

    Lars,

    But why did Bates go to the Daily Mail and Rose if he merely wanted to “have a bigger discussion about how we ensure the quality of the data”?

    I doubt Bates went to the Daily Mail entirely under his own volition. A previously unknown American scientist and a British tabloid journalist – not an obvious fit. What is an obvious pathway is Bates -> Curry -> Rose. Curry handling him and encouraging or simply suggesting he go to Rose.

    The further question is how his initial dossier came to be “sexed up”. Was that entirely his work, or were there other ‘thumbs on the scale’?

  193. angech says:

    Willard says. “> There’s more to come Doc can smell it too. He’s in good form at Judy’s:”
    Agitated and hay fever, nose blocking up at the moment.

  194. Marco says:

    “What is an obvious pathway is Bates -> Curry -> Rose.”

    I think that has been openly admitted by Curry?

  195. angech says:

    Sometime life is one step forward, 2 or more back.
    Waiting for this story to grow another arm and a leg.
    As said what we want in life to happen often takes a back seat to reality. We get our hopes built up only for the last minute fail.
    There are two sorts of global records, adjustable ones and unadjustable ones.
    Land and sea fall into the first one and satellite and balloons into the second.
    By adjustable I mean records that are adjusted continually and never stay the same as when originally listed.
    Zeke explained years ago that the land records are continuously adjusted downwards in the past.
    I am not aware that this happens with the other data sets.
    It means that running comparisons like Karl did are only ever valid for the date and list of past temps on the day that data was run.
    If you run the same programme a month or year later the data in is different .
    Hence the only way this study could ever be replicated is for a complete data set to be archived for that study.
    Bates is right this was not done.
    People talking about the raw data still being available do not understand that it cannot be run the the wringer and give that date again.
    Nor can the current data as the past data has been modified away from that Karl used.

  196. angech,

    There are two sorts of global records, adjustable ones and unadjustable ones.
    Land and sea fall into the first one and satellite and balloons into the second.

    This is simply wrong. There is an enormous amount of adjustments required in order to turn what the satellites measure into a temperature timeseries.

    Zeke explained years ago that the land records are continuously adjusted downwards in the past.

    Citation? This is a claim, but you’ve provided no evidence.

    If you run the same programme a month or year later the data in is different .

    Well, yes, because the data is actually different.

  197. paulski0 says:

    angech,

    Hence the only way this study could ever be replicated is for a complete data set to be archived for that study.

    That’s a very narrow and kind of pointless definition of ‘replicated’. Going through the same process using the current version of the dataset would still be replication. If it gives a significantly different result that would tell us something. If it shows essentially the same result that demonstrates robustness.

    Bates is right this was not done.

    Wrong. The unadjusted land station data snapshot they used is archived here:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/scpub201506/WithoutCorrections/LandData/

    It’s ‘tavg.v4.a.1.20150119.qcu.dat.gz’. Note the snapshot date of January 19, 2015.

  198. Willard says:

    According to Judy, John wrote a letter to Wall Street Journal first. But it got rejected. Then David Rose happened to be in Atlanta. She wasn’t but arranged a meeting between John and David.

    Senior does not seem to appreciate John stepping back:

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837701

    Right after GaryM tried to say there was no backpedaling.

  199. paulski0 says:

    Willard,

    That was fun. Also see his remark about ‘little policy relevance’, and that’s clearly made in mind of the initial trumped-up claims. Meanwhile, Bates and Curry have been talking about ‘major policy implications.’

    I have to wonder what these wide-ranging important investigations Curry calls for are supposed to be looking into based on the “totally-non-backpedaling” current claims.

  200. Joshua says:

    –snip–
    Geoff Sherrington | February 8, 2017 at 8:32 pm | Reply
    Thumb on the scale does not imply cheating to me.
    –snip–

    The power of motivated reasoning…it can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

  201. JCH says:

    Between the lines… Curry and Bates have been friends for a long time, so she has been watering this weed for, likely, years. Karl demoted Bates; she exploited the opening.

    Rose probably came on her radar when he first published the pause stuff. If Rose were to dump her correspondence to him, what would it reveal? Those two are wedded at the hip.

    She’s pure, so Rose should just release the whole file… all of Curry’s emails, letters, calculations, and his notes on their phone calls.

  202. Joshua says:

    =={ Rose probably came on her radar when he first published the pause stuff. }==

    I believe that the article linked below was the beginning of a long and beautiful collaboration:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

  203. angech: “There are two sorts of global records, adjustable ones and unadjustable ones.Land and sea fall into the first one and satellite and balloons into the second.”

    That is even the reverse. Before other scientists revealed that the satellites have a drift and UAH had to make corrections for orbital drift to their satellite data, this data showed no trend or even slight cooling. At that moment all warming was adjustment. Then your adjustments need to be very accurate. That is hard to do because you have little to compare with in case of satellite data and you cannot check the instruments/sensor after operation.

    Also radiosonde datasets need large adjustments. Because the radiosonde network is much sparser than the station network, comparisons with nearby other radiosondes is harder than comparisons with other nearby stations.

    angech: “Zeke explained years ago that the land records are continuously adjusted downwards in the past.

    Our assessment is indeed that the land warmed more than one would estimate from raw GHCNv3 data.

    For the sea surface temperature the situation is the reserve. We estimate that the ocean warmed less than the raw data suggests.

    The all over effect is that the global mean temperature (ocean and land) is assessed to have warmer less than the global raw data would suggest. For details, reasons and methods see this post:
    http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

    The next GHCN dataset is based on the larger ISTI raw data. This raw data shows more warming and nearly no corrections are necessary any more. For details see:
    http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2017/02/david-roses-alternative-reality-noaa-Karl.html

  204. Willard says:

    PaulS,

    Senior’s reading was great:

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837782

    Kip’s call to Reason is even better:

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837793

    I posted that response:

    > A call to Reason.

    It sounds more like a call for reasons, Kip.

    Or a call for evidence.

    Let us have faith in INTEGRITY ™.

    It will be great again.

    Teh Donald Will Make INTEGRITY Great Again.

    He shall overcomb all insignificant pettiness.

    All Denizens [need] is for teh Donald to put his slender thumbs on the scale of his glassy keyboard.

    Let us just wait for teh Donald’s tweets.

    The stock of INTEGRITY ™ will rise.

    AGW, a Chinese hoax, will finally be vindicated.

    And then Myron will need someone to help him rebuild everything.

    Everything.

    Not from the bureaucracy.

    But from private citizens.

    For the people, by corporations.

    American corporations first.

    Only will we have evidence we will trust.

    Thank you.

    It should appear as soon as Judy fishes it out from the spam.

  205. paulski0 says:

    Yep, it’s there, Willard.

    Reading the backstory, what exactly are the ethical issues Bates is trying to raise? I mean in terms of the latest iteration of his claims. Serious question, looking for a best case for Bates’ argument.

    Are archiving and documentation practices really ethical issues?

    He’s still pushing the ‘rush to publish’ and ‘influencing policy’ beliefs, but surely he realises those are pure speculation.

  206. It is sad that ethical reasonable open-mindedness, which remains the standard in science, resembles unilateral disarmament in the US attack world of power now in place. They also suppress voters and now have power to make that worse, which is an ongoing problem with new elections. It will take a figure of Obama’s charisma to overcome the systemic bias in areas dominated by authorities and courts populated with political operatives. But if we are to talk about ethics, this about Bates should be more generally known:

    There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff. It was apparently no secret that the demotion did not sit well with Bates.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

    Also via RC, this useful summary: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8205/full/
    “Squabble over supposed global-warming pause illuminates new political challenges”

    Willard, I’ve put a couple of backstory notes about Kip over at RealClimate.

  207. Eli Rabett says:

    Much more likely that the flow was Bates > Webster > Curry > Rose. Both Bates and Webster were senior in AGU at about the same time.

  208. Willard says:

    Thanks, PaulS and SusanA.

    Reflecting upon this whole ClimateBall ™ episode, I think I now see what is the main ethical issue:

    The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

    The issue is therefore quite clear – there was no disclaimer at the bottom of any page saying that it was research data.

    My “reading” (h/t Senior) of it is thus that Karl had a dilemma.

    Either he added a disclaimer saying it was just research data, in which case Da Paws would still be alive, Paris would have failed, and Western Civilization saved, America first it goes without saying. Or he put his thumb on the scale and make that disclaimer disappear. He chose the latter. And now Da Paws is gone, Paris is a success, and Western Civilization is on the verge of ideological bankruptcy.

    Karl has the most important thumb in the world and he failed the auditing sciences.

    ***

    If only we had editors to make sure this never happens again. Denizens could do this, but consider Senior‘s point:

    As to stress testing their work, it takes funding to do . We have done some on a limited budget, but it is far from complete.

    JohnB’s whistle blowing is getting lots of stress. Is anyone being paid to stress test his work? Perhaps. But it’s clearly not enough. See how he backpeddled incoherently.

    Thus the ethical issue is that if we want scientific extreme vetting, we need more editors.

    The solution is to fund editors so that they can to stress test scientific audits.

    That’s the only objective conclusion.

    Thank you.

  209. John Hartz says:

    A nicely writtern and well researched, behind-the-scene analysis of the Bates Affair.

    How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study by Warren Cornwall & Paul Voosen, Science (AAAS), Feb 8, 2017

  210. Joshua says:

    Susan –

    Thanks for the link to RC’s article.

    Gavin’s post is on point, IMO.

    It seems to me that this is déjà vu all over again (aka sameosameo). The only thing that really matters is that the charges are laid out and widely publicized: manipulation, data tampering, cooking the books, etc.

    IMO, any forensic examination of the chain of events is largely beside the point, because all that really matters is that the headlines are read and the signals are sent. In that sense, not matter the chain of events, Judith has done a magnificent job. I complimented her on accomplishing a mission that aligns with her agenda (but for some reason my comment doing so didn’t get posted).

    This signaling serves to confirm preexisting beliefs, and whatever counterarguments matter not at all, because the die is mostly cast and even where it isn’t, the counterarguments will only server to confirm the preexisting biases.

    Of course, we are seeing this play out across a much larger scale in the U.S. Perhaps the best example is that Trump is going to keep us safe by a “narrowly focused and temporary” immigration ban. No rational argument has to be presented for why this action will make a material difference in our safety. No need to address counterarguments as to why such action might be counterproductive. What matters is that the argument is presented and that there is not a highly functional mechanism where any counterarguments will effectively be branded as “fake news” from hysterical “snowflakes.” Polling on these issues are showing a rather spectacular split of completely opposite views on these issues, in accordance with a more general ideological identification. So it could be that significant numbers of Trump supporters would think that he had unprecedented crowds at his inauguration and even if they see pictures of the crowds and not change their minds.

    And I highly doubt that these patterns would be distributed in different proportions across ideological divides.

    IMO, the notion of “science communication” is meaningless in such an environment – because in fact people are not communicating. The are involved in speech acts and usually we think of speech acts as a form of communication, but that is not the only function of speech acts; it depends on the context.

    I am always reluctant to believe in large-scale societal changes. I think that making such a conclusion requires an extraordinary high bar of evidence. I tend to think that what appears to be dramatic changes usually turn out, over time, to be noise amid the signal. I am struggling to hold on to that belief despite what I am watching transpire on a daily basis.

    I would be curious to know whether ATTP commenters from other countries are feeling that there is some kind of dramatic and rapid shift towards their societies taking on more and more of a parallel universe kind of profile

  211. Willard says:

    My comment is now awaiting moderation. One of my links may have contained a verboten word at Judy’s. The word starts with a C and ends with an L.

    ***

    Senior added another item in the suggestion box, I believe in response to Joshua’s question What does “independent assessments” mean?

    This is an easy answer. Select specialists who were not involved in developing and implementing NCDC etc data sets. Fund them properly to do a study with input from interested parties including NCDC. Report than needs to be peer reviewed. National Academy logical venue but would have to be sufficiently funded. GWPF”s input would be part of consideration.

    Since the GWPF already have an extreme vetting committee, I asked:

    > GWPF”s input would be part of consideration.

    Do you have any information as to when it’ll release its International Temperature Data Review?

    It seems that you and McNider are still on its panel.

    Small world.

    The Auditor had a word for when A vetted B who in turn vetted A. I can’t recall what it was.

    I now recall what the “word” was. It’s not a word. It’s an expression. The expression is check kiting.

  212. Joshua says:

    Sorry – I meant to say… “What matters is that the argument is presented and that there is not now a highly functional mechanism where any counterarguments will effectively be branded as “fake news” from hysterical “snowflakes.”

    –snip–
    For the other half, we asked a very simple question with one clearly correct answer: “Which photo has more people?” Some of these people probably understood that the image on the left was from Trump’s inauguration and that the image on the right was from Obama’s, but admitting that there were more people in the image on the right would mean they were acknowledging that more people attended Obama’s inauguration.

    Would some people be willing to make a clearly false statement when looking directly at photographic evidence — simply to support the Trump administration’s claims?

    Yes.

    […]

    For the question about which image went with which inauguration, 41 percent of Trump supporters gave the wrong answer; that’s significantly more than the wrong answers given by 8 percent of Clinton voters and 21 percent of those who did not vote.

    But what’s even more noteworthy is that 15 percent of people who voted for Trump told us that more people were in the image on the left — the photo from Trump’s inauguration — than the picture on the right. We got that answer from only 2 percent of Clinton voters and 3 percent of nonvoters.

    Even when the photographic evidence was directly in front of them and the question was straightforward, one in seven Trump supporters gave the clearly false answer.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/25/we-asked-people-which-inauguration-crowd-was-bigger-heres-what-they-said/?utm_term=.aeb8c4a6e1bd

  213. Magma says:

    @Willard 1:00 pm

    Even while he grumbles about Bates’ inconsistency, RP Sr. admits it’s a molehill:

    I actually do not see this as an issue as to whether or nor global warming has been occurring (it is), or even if there was a pause or not (there was a slow down certainly before the recent El Nino). But it is an issue of the objectivity and collegial behavior of lead scientists at NCDC, who, from my experience, are lacking in those attributes. This should matter for our profession, even if its policy relevance is small.

  214. JCH says:

    Me, I sick and tired of ordering Gavin to do a bunch of work just to have the haughty little gopher refuse. And I know you guys are too. So It’s investigative committee time for sure.

  215. angech says:

    Adjustable, you have both missed which part of temperature recordings I was talking about..
    I was talking about adjustments after the recordings ( with their various adjustments) are made.
    Take a record made on the 15th may 2005.
    1 week, 1 month and 1 year later the satellite, an isosonde recorded data, as of that date, will be exactly the same. Unaltered.
    None of the data by earth land surface thermometers will be the same.
    It will all be altered.
    GCHN as an example will have totally different figures for all sites on that day and for every date and site going back for 100 plus years.
    There is no fixed immutable figure for the land records for any date or time.
    I am not complaining (much).
    Thanks V V for the charts and links, I will look at them.
    Victor shows the discrepancy going back in time, raw to real.
    I just wish that a limit would be inserted in the data adjustment that lets the past have some appropriateness to the present.
    Vis a vis the current discussion, this is the reason I felt Karl could not be replicated.
    paulski0 says: February 9, 2017 at 12:46 pm says it is available.
    If the code and data are fully available then my and Bates comment would be wrong.
    Go for it.
    Someone who knows would confirm it and Bates would look bad.
    Waiting.
    “That’s a very narrow and kind of pointless definition of ‘replicated’. Going through the same process using the current version of the dataset would still be replication. If it gives a significantly different result that would tell us something. If it shows essentially the same result that demonstrates robustness.”
    Same Paul S as did good maths stuff at other sites 3-4 years ago?
    Disagree. Good definitions are narrow (precise even) hence meaningful (not pointless).
    Replication is replication. Clones etc.
    Repeating the process with different data is doing a different run. If a different run shows the same result it is never robust, it is a monkey on the keyboard result at best (flimsy) or worse.

  216. angech – the raw data does not change, it’s always there. Archived. You’re just wrong. Again.

  217. Steven Mosher says:

    “1 week, 1 month and 1 year later the satellite, an isosonde recorded data, as of that date, will be exactly the same. Unaltered.
    None of the data by earth land surface thermometers will be the same.
    It will all be altered.”

    This is wrong

    Its really hilarious because the sonde data and the satellite data changes even more than the surface data.

    Here is a challenge for Angech.

    Go find the RAW satellite data for the grid cell above New York city.

    I wont wait, because you cant find it.

    Go find the algorithm used on board the satellite…

    I wont wait… the last time we requested it (magicjava) we were denied because of ITAR

    Roy does his grids in 2.5 degrees… He averages from a higher resolution grid cells to a low res
    2.5 Degree. Go ask him for his data before he averages it…

    I wont wait, he doesnt give that data out beause it would be too hard.

    Go find a listing of every satellite gore for every month … this would be areas where the satellite missed or had bad data that had to be interpolated..

    I wont wait there is no list.

    Go find the corrections to emissivity for temperatures taken over frozem land…

    I wont wait… they didnt do that.

    and so on

  218. Joshua says:

    Where Judith is asked if Karl was guilty of a criminal offense, and she rather pointedly does not say “no”.

    There are other goodies, as well.

  219. Joshua says:

    My favorite part is where, in response to the interviewers concerns about smart meters, she shares her concerns about Maurice Strong….”global goverment”…

    No. I’m actually not kidding.

  220. Susan Anderson says:

    Thanks Joshua, agreed. Gavin Schmidt is the real deal, and manages to stay polite. (Plus in the US we’re suckers for a British accent.) I’d forgotten this, which covers the whole shebang:

    @ScottWesterfeld
    Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

    Brevity, wit’s soul

    (btw, voter suppression: that’s a thing, unlike vote fraud. Thumbs on scales aplenty.)

  221. Pingback: La strategia del Serengeti – OggiScienza

  222. Marco says:

    Joshua, even some Wattsians apparently expressed concern that she went on a Richie Allen show, and not just because he works together with David Icke (“beware of the lizards!”).

    No one should be surprised that she was suckered into conspiracies, though. That’s Richie Allen’s shtick.

  223. Just in case it isn’t obvious, the show on which Judith appeared (video in Joshua’s recent comment) is in association with David Icke, who thinks the British Royal Family are shape-shifting lizards. Sou has already covered it.

  224. Tony Banton says:

    From the excellent Peter Hadfield (Potholer54)

  225. verytallguy says:

    Just in case it isn’t obvious, the show on which Judith appeared (video in Joshua’s recent comment) is in association with David Icke, who thinks the British Royal Family are shape-shifting lizards. Sou has already covered it.

    WTF?

  226. BBD says:

    I know. Wonderful, isn’t it?

  227. Marco says:

    If I interpret angech’s comment as positively as I can, I think he’s pointing at the fact that satellites measure something, and those numbers (the microwave signals) don’t change (the analysis does, and quite often), whereas the surface station record is constantly evolving, including ‘back in time’, as new data is added (including ‘back in time’) or old data removed (because found to be wrong at a later point). That’s a fair comment in and by itself. However, as I understand it, the raw surface station data used by Karl et al was provided (that is, it does not have this problem), while the code for the further data handling is not necessary, because the method is described in the literature. Just running the same code is in most cases completely useless, because it still says little if someone can get the exact numbers. The code could do the craziest of stuff (*).
    That is, anyone can reproduce Karl et al, assuming they know how to implement the methodology.

    Note here that I used the word “reproduce” and not “replicate”. As angech states “good definitions are narrow”. Unfortunately, he got the wrong definition for “replication” (he’s not alone in this). As Roger Peng noted in 2009 “The replication of scientific findings using independent investigators, methods, data, equipment, and protocols has long been, and will continue to be, the standard by which scientific claims are evaluated. However, in many fields of study there are examples of scientific investigations that cannot be fully replicated because of a lack of time or resources. In such a situation, there is a need for a minimum standard that can fill the void between full replication and nothing. One candidate for this minimum standard is “reproducible research”, which requires that data sets and computer code be made available to others for verifying published results and conducting alternative analyses.”

    In the case of Karl et al we are thus somewhere in the middle of replicability and reproducibility. Without the code (again, it is my understanding this was not provided), it cannot be reproduced, because our own code based on the description in the literature may yield a different result nonetheless (either due to errors on our side, or an error in the code Karl et al used). But it is easily replicated…

    (*) There are some papers that I know I would be able to reproduce, even replicate using the exact same analysis methods (‘code’), but because they use the wrong methodology, my reproduction/replication would still result in the wrong answer.

  228. Tony,
    Thanks, just been watching that.

    vtg,
    Indeed.

  229. Jim Hunt says:

    Mornin’ All (UTC),

    Nobody’s mentioned this in here yet, but it seems that after years of prodding Richard Betts has finally torn a leaf out of “Snow White’s” ClimateBall ™ playbook!

    Tony – Thanks for the heads up! Snow will no doubt be “reblogging” that PotHoler video RSN!

  230. angech says:

    Marco, thanks for noting the gist of the argument.
    oneillsinwisconsin says:
    February 10, 2017 at 3:21 am
    angech – the raw data does not change, it’s always there. Archived. You’re just wrong. Again.
    You are partly right the raw data does not change but it does get lost or wiped out so it is not always therein is only there when it is archived and that does not always happen.
    The problem then is you can have your derived data but not be able to get back to the raw data, eg the CRU records?

  231. Marco says:

    angech, that’s not quite right either. The raw data of the CRU records is archived by the NMOs, where the data that CRU held came from, and at NCDC (now NCEI). Like this whole Bates affair, the “CRU destroyed data” is another very good example of enormously overblown claims that do not even come close to reality.

    Reportedly, it also was only a fraction of the raw data that CRU threw out, with a focus on stations that did not even make it into the CRU record itself due to clear UHI bias.

  232. angech says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 10, 2017 at 4:04 am
    “1 week, 1 month and 1 year later the satellite, an isosonde recorded data, as of that date, will be exactly the same. Unaltered.
    None of the data by earth land surface thermometers will be the same.
    It will all be altered.”

    “This is wrong. Its really hilarious because the sonde data and the satellite data changes even more than the surface data.”

    My comment referenced a date and a time frame to specifically show that when you look at a satellite record and check it a week month or year later the figures should be the same.
    This is never true of land surface records done by GCHN as Zeke explained 4 years ago at Judy’s.

    You choose to ignore my comment and go off on a tangent about satellite data changes which have to happen every few years to account for satellite drift. Yes the record is changed but after that change each data point again stays invariant for a week,month, year and a little longer.
    Further when the data is changed it doecs not change the temperature back at the starting point.
    So to repeat, Zeke says adjustments are made daily and monthly on all data that is available on a daily or monthly basis in land surface temps such as GCHN .
    These adjustments further go back to affect and usually lower all preceding records so every day is different.
    No hilarity there.

    Here is a challenge for Angech.Go find the RAW satellite data for the grid cell above New York city.
    I wont wait, because you cant find it.

    The raw satellite data in essence is the raw temperature Steven. You can find that in the Satellite figures. As you fully know the temperature is arrived at through an algorithm for the satellite(s) used. It is as real a raw figure as what the Stevenson thermometer puts out. One could equally ask you to show the ductile features of the particular thermometer at Alice Springs.
    As you put it I won’t wait either because you could not find it either.
    The funny thing is that good thermometers there read the temperature 3 degrees higher in the past than what the adjusted figures show. Not a problem with the satellites?

    Go find the corrections to emissivity for temperatures taken over frozen land…I wont wait… they didnt do that.
    One of the great arguments for good science, as ATTP puts in his next blog is that it is not always perfect. The fact that you can find the odd flaw makes the overall work so much better, so much how should I put it, human.
    When you have studies that cannot tolerate flaws and paper over them and deny them then you have problem studies.
    We have several such data sets that are practically perfect.
    Everything is clean and homogenised .
    No errors exist.
    Much rather a slightly flawed data set of raw, well sort of raw constant data, than data sets that are perfect but constantly changing with time.

  233. angech says:

    Marco it is a bit like finding an old manuscript as time goes by. There are data sets on temp out there that are still being found and added in to use by scientists like Steven. But data storage is a terrible issue. I would not be surprised if we are losing data that should be kept by the bucketful. Not by design but bureacrats, fires, computer crashes etc. worse archiving sometimes is in printed form that is terribly had to access to reuse later.Tax files and medical histories spring to mind.
    I came into this a bit later on than most of you ,post climate gate so my knowledge on that is bits and pieces only.

  234. angech,

    The raw satellite data in essence is the raw temperature Steven.

    No, it’s not. It will be some number coming out of a sensor that then has to be converted (via a complex algorithm) into a temperature.

  235. JCH says:

    Chilling… Lamar Smith at 56:30:

  236. Marco says:

    Angech, yes, old documents will at some point in time possibly disappear (NMOs are pretty good at archiving, though). At one point in time we just have to work with the data we have, and most definitely not making Mount Everest out of a goosebump, when some minor proportion of raw data that is not even their own raw data is removed from storage to allow new things to be stored.

    My usual question when someone complains about the data storage of stuff that is so many decades old is “got a few million? I am sure they’ll gladly use it to archive it in a better way”.

    Sometimes you can also wonder whether you really need the original raw data. Note the difference between nice to have and need to have. The CRU data is a gridded product, do we really need everything at station level? Nice to have, yes, need to have, no. Granted, it makes it easier for the obfuscationists to do what they do best: sow doubt. But who, in the 1980s, ever considered that these people would wield so much power over the public discourse?

  237. Marco says:

    JCH, you probably meant 58:30, but it would be good to start earlier (56:45 or so).

  238. paulski0 says:

    angech,

    If the code and data are fully available then my and Bates comment would be wrong.
    Go for it.
    Someone who knows would confirm it and Bates would look bad.

    I posted the link to the data. Methods are described in the Supplementary Material. Code appears to be the software used for the standard NOAA global product. It’s not provided in the Science archive but presumably available on request. Why not ask for it?

    Bates does look bad already.

    Yes the record is changed but after that change each data point again stays invariant for a week,month, year and a little longer.

    You appear to have already forgotten the “scandal” about RSS data changing a few months ago. They have to make assumptions about the behaviour of satellites and update those assumptions as new information comes in.

  239. JCH says:

    The satellites do not produce surface temperature data. None. The nonexistent satellite surface temperature data is kept in a ZIPPO file. And until they start hanging thermometers from satellites on really really long strings, the surface temperature data they do not have will not change.

    Or I guess they could could load the satellites into some of these:

    Marco – the part where bully Smith tries to stop Holt from discussing Bates’s complete retreat.

  240. Jim Hunt says:

    “Chilling”

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    We have honed in on Congressman Lamar Smith’s recent behaviour at our shiny new campaigning web site:

    The Save Our Surf Forecast campaign

    The US House Science Committee is currently trying to f(r)@ck with NOAA on Trump(ed) up charges.

    Now NOAA are the guys that run the wave buoys and the WaveWatch III “surf” forecasting model. So if you approve of this public service announcement please SPREAD THE WORD.

  241. Susan Anderson says:

    I’m listening to the BBC Hardtalk interview with Myron Ebell from Fergus Brown’s link and see it’s gone missing in the discussion. An embarrassment of material for the midden, but Ebell is one of the shadow figures (along with Fred Singer) behind the US fossil forever push from what I have taken to calling the kleptocracy (profiteers/looters in charge of everything, education, health, labor, finance, etc.). Not nice, not nice at all, gollum!
    http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/23-minutes-to-kiss-planet-goodbye.html

  242. Susan Anderson says:

    If your time (or patience or appetite for horrors) is short, please go to minute 6 and listen as long as you can take it. Interviewer is doing a pretty good job of underlining the financial basis of the lies, but there is no compromising in the fictional basis of the argument from Ebell.

  243. Andrew Dodds says:

    JCH –

    Well, they could just strip the atmosphere. Then it should be easy enough to measure surface temperature from satellites. And it’s in line with Trump’s policy to remove the environment. Joind up thinking, there.

  244. Phil says:

    I have a comment stuck in moderation on a thread at Tamino’s so I thought I’d post it here instead.

    Not specifically related to Rose’s piece in OP, but here (thanks to a BTL comment at the Guardian) is a photo of a Rose article in the Fail On Sunday from 2013. As Jim Hunt mentioned upthread here, Richard Betts has already had fun with Rose’s graph on twitter. But also notice the Time magazine cover, then read Tamino thread. Here, in full view, is the quality of “Award Winning Journalist” David Rose’s fact checking skills.

  245. Susan Anderson says:

    Dr. Holt, former member of the House of Representatives, is too wrapped up in science to see how weak his arguments look to people who have dismissed him as an “insider”. His attempt to be intelligent and reasonable and provide a parallel example only affirm his opponents who wish to dismiss him. They want red meat: put those %$^@)(*& scientists in jail (crucify them). They have the power to fire them, and they will. Bernice Johnson has a sticky wicket there. It’s a foreign language, science, and thoughtful consideration is out of date here.

  246. Phil, yes, that fake Time cover was used in the Daily Mail. David Kirtley exposed it as a fake at the time – see his guest post over at Greg Laden’s back in 2013: The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers

  247. Joshua says:

    Anders –

    =={ Just in case it isn’t obvious, the show on which Judith appeared (video in Joshua’s recent comment) is in association with David Icke,… }==

    Her appearing on a show of a (self-described) conspiracy theorist is, in itself, less interesting to me. First, I don’t particularly like guilt by association, even if in this case there is a reasonable question about why she would go onto a show of a conspiracy theorist if she knew he is a conspiracy theorist (and if she didn’t know, why she didn’t do any research about the show before agreeing to go onto his show). But in the end, she could just say that she believes in engaging with anyone about the science because she’s open-minded…or hide by saying she didn’t know anything about his show (an excuse she’s offered before to explain questionable associations with people from “extreme” political or scientific camps).

    But what she said on the show is what I think is more meaningful. She was asked point blank if Karl committed a criminal act, and didn’t answer the question. That is particularly interesting given the follow-up with Bates where he has said he wasn’t implying outright scientific fraud, let alone criminality.

    She was also asked point blank about the “hoax” explanation for why the climate science community expresses concern about ACO2 emissions – with the question specifically framed around the historical trajectory of the public discussion, and her response was about (in IMO incoherent rambling) Maurice Strong and “global government.” No caveats whatsoever about there being any legitimate concerns. As much as I find it logically flawed when “skeptics” try to claim that Judith is somehow in a middle ground (as angech did above), I don’t recall when Judith has been so openly transparent about sailing into the farther out reaches of the “skeptical” constellation.

  248. JCH says:

    Paul S linked to this news story over at CargoCult Etc.

    It’s very odd that he has not posted it here. I can only guess that aTTP has censored it for political reasons.

    Bates also accused Karl of rushing publication for political purposes, timing it to influence the Paris climate talks. Karl and his colleagues deny that their research was rushed, and say there was never any discussion of getting it out before the climate summit in Paris. And despite his accusation, Bates told Inside Science that he doesn’t remember any such conversations, either. He confirmed that the political motivation was a guess, based only on the pace of the research and the date when it came out.

  249. Steven Mosher says:

    Joshua I listened to pieces of that interview, she appears to have gone native.

    I noticed a similar thing a while back in her interview with Mark Levin.

    Given a clear opportunity, in front of conservative audience, to carve out a position for herself in the middle, given a clear opportunity to say Stop saying its a hoax, she shades her presentation away from this direct confrontation.

  250. Joshua says:

    Steven –

    Agreed. She took the same path in her recent interview with Ron Paul, also.

  251. John Hartz says:

    This nicely sums up the significance of The Bates Affair

    The Karl study has sparked controversy ever since it was published. The study deals with the period between about 1998 and 2012, when global temperatures were rising more slowly than at other times in recent history. Some researchers have called this period a global warming “hiatus,” and climate skeptics have used it to dismiss fears about rising global temperatures. The Karl study appeared to undercut these arguments by showing that temperatures had been rising faster than previously thought.

    But even if there were a warming hiatus, it wouldn’t discredit human-caused climate change, said Fyfe. Researchers view temporary lulls in surface temperature increases as an expected part of the global warming process. Now, Fyfe notes, surface temperatures appear to be spiking again, with record warmth three years in a row.

    “Society should be aware that this is not just a straight line. There are going to be, you know, ups and downs to the warming,” said Fyfe.

    For his part, Bates maintains his criticisms of the Karl study and his concerns about how climate data are managed. But when it comes to the reality of climate change, he sees eye-to-eye with his former colleagues.

    “Global warming,” Bates said, “is a scientific fact.”

    Retired NOAA Scientist Doubles Down on Climate Data Controversy by Nala Rogers, Inside Science, Feb 9, 2017.

  252. Susan Anderson says:

    If Dr. Curry hadn’t promoted it on Fox News and Rep. Lamar Smith in the House and Sen. Cruz in the Senate hadn’t gone full bore attack, Karl et al. would have simply been a properly vetted scientific article published in a reputable journal that added to the world’s sum of knowledge in a complex and growing field of study. The denial that temperature measurement has to be calibrated in comparison with history and other measurements, and that no measurements are absolute for the sake of argument, is misleading by intention, not by accident.

    They’d like to pretend the controversy has legs, but it’s a case of attack dogs and fictionalization to create doubt, a tried and true technique. Please do check out what Ebell says, he makes the foregone conclusion all too clear.

  253. paulski0 says:

    JCH,

    Heh, well I think I posted it there because I got the first copy/paste from there. Thought people here might have already seen the story.

    Bates continues to be incomprehensible. Continues to talk about ‘biases that seem to lead in one direction’ yet nothing he’s presented suggests anything like that. I wonder if he believes he has presented evidence of that.

  254. John Hartz says:

    Susan Anderson: You are correct. Although The Bates Affair is a “nothing burger”, it will continue to rattle around in the Climate Science Denial Spian Machine for years to come.

  255. John Hartz says:

    Speaking of the Climate Science Denial Spin Machine, here’s a timely article for your reading pleasure…

    How the New Climate Denial Is Like the Old Climate Denial: Both are excuses for inaction. by Meehan Crist, The Atlantic, Feb 10, 2017

  256. Although The Bates Affair is a “nothing burger”

    I think you mean a NOAA-thing burger.

  257. John Hartz says:

    ATTP: Either descriptor is valid 🙂

  258. JCH says:

    Bates says he is not one of the NOAA whistle blowers that Smith referred way over a year ago.

    Thomas Peterson says he ran into Bates at the theater. They were there to see Much Ado About Nothing. According to Peterson, Bates indicate it’s about to get interesting.

    This is great. We get to do this at least two more times.

  259. Steven Mosher says:

    angech

    “You choose to ignore my comment and go off on a tangent about satellite data changes which have to happen every few years to account for satellite drift. Yes the record is changed but after that change each data point again stays invariant for a week,month, year and a little longer.
    Further when the data is changed it doecs not change the temperature back at the starting point.
    So to repeat, Zeke says adjustments are made daily and monthly on all data that is available on a daily or monthly basis in land surface temps such as GCHN .
    These adjustments further go back to affect and usually lower all preceding records so every day is different.
    No hilarity there.”

    You, Bates, even Mcintyre, totally misunderstand how the adjustment process works on surface stations and how it differs from satellites.

    But first lets stipulate that as new data comes in, day in and day out, the surface record changes.
    The first thing to note is that this should tell you something about about some secret plan to put a thumb on the scales that will always ratchet the warming up.

    To understand why the data will change as you bring new data in, you have to understand the two fundamentally different approaches to adjustment.

    Approach 1. This is the approach used by NOAA in the past: they had several programs,
    filnet, shapfile, and TOBS. This is also the approach used by RSS, UAH, and Folks who
    work on SST. I will call it the DISCRETE, Bottoms up approach.

    In this approach you identify a change ( say TOB) and you calculate an adjustment for the record. Say Buckets to inlets. You do a feild study and you estimate: whats the average difference. Or take UAH.. You have records before the drift, and after the drift. so
    you calculate a DISCRETE adjustment for that thing, and you apply it. you Add X or subtract X.
    This is done once and only once. Each change is traceable. When new data comes in, nothing
    changes ( if you adjust the deep past ) So for 1979-1998, you may add .3C and until
    you rewrite your software nothing changes. you keep recording new data and make no adjustment to current data. You’ve already adjusted the deep past. Everything stays the same.
    Same with the TOBS approach, and the SHAP approach and FILNET. the past is changed once and remains changed day in and day out. There is a problem with this discrete approach in that
    it tends to be a one size fits all approach. Take MMTS.. this change adjusts all stations with the
    same offset due to sensor changes.. Its an average difference between sensor types. The question is what if some stations sensors dont have the known bias? And the other question
    is how do you propagate the error due to adjustment?

    Approach 2. NOAA moved to approach 2 with the advent of PHa. We also do something grossly
    similar to Pha. I will call these approaches Top Down purely data driven approaches.
    in a top down purely data driven approach the algorithm is DESIGNED TO RESPOND TO NEW DATA. get that? you are constantly recalculating the adjustment. Now if the input data doesnt change.. the adjustment will stay the same. BUT if you add more data, add more stations, or remove stations, then the answer is DESIGNED to reflect the changes in the data.
    New data will change our estimate of what we think the past really was. Now, this doesnt happen
    with every station. For our stations about 15000 of the 40K+ never change. They get no adjustments and they are the same day in and day out ( these are the highest quality stations)
    but some stations even a small percentage ( say 5%) will change because the new data suggests a better estimate for the error in the station. take 5% of 40K and you can see that
    people will always have a field day saying “why did this change”

    The reason they change is that new data suggests a change to an estimate of the past will reduce the overall error, it is Purely data driven. Same with PHa. No human sits there and says
    “raise this” or :lower that. There is just an algorithm, that doesnt have politics. That is blind to political parties. All that algorithm does is ask ‘how do I weight or change the past data to reduce the error”

    Which is right? Approach 1 or Approach 2? Not really a sensible question. They are two different approaches to the same problem. There is an interesting project going on where folks will compare the results given by approach 1 with those of approach 2. In fact there are some papers on it. basically, you take a country where the NWS has done a human approach, discrete bottom up, and they compare it to our approach. Results.. on a country basis sometimes we are higher sometimes lower. Comparing site to site.. they differ alot.
    Globally there is no difference.

    What’s this mean for folks? Well if you want a global answer either method will do. If you
    are interested in a small region.. they you probably want to take the time to do both and compare them. As an example, R Way and I once did Labrador using a variety of methods..

    Now, I could just as easily do a new ocean product (hint hint ) where we applied the top down
    data driven approach. The adjustments are calculated on the fly.. not pre determined..
    its just minimizing a huge matrix. And i could do the same thing for satellite data.. such that
    it would re calculate adjustments every day..

  260. John Hartz says:

    Here is the most concise overview of The Bates Affair that I have come accross to date…

    New talk of warming pause just another faux climate controversy by Susan Hassol and Michael Mann, New Scientist, Feb 10, 2017

    The concluding paragraphs of the article are noteworthy and echo many of the comments posted on this thread:

    In the final analysis, this was much ado about nothing, a bureaucratic issue involving data archiving procedures raised by someone not involved in the substance of the science. Such specious, mountain-out-of-molehill arguments are promoted when critics don’t have a legitimate scientific case to make.

    But fossil-fuelled politicians and the right-wing media serving as their megaphones will continue to wring every ounce of faux controversy they can out of this episode. For unlike the scientists they are criticising, they don’t care about scientific truth. They care only about advancing their political agenda.

  261. Willard says:

    I stopped at 2:30, a bit after “playing politics with climate data.”

    Speaking of which, here’s Kip, trying to keep the ball in play:

    [Senior] ==> It might make sense to prepare a new White Paper, or a package of previous materials, for the incoming Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, who will be NOAA’s new boss.

    Seems that the new target is the EPA itself. Speaking of which:

    These agencies under President Obama were infused with Obama’s ideology, particularly the EPA and NOAA (I know less about the USDA). Has this led to unethical behaviors in these agencies? I do know of one example, and I have post planned for Feb 5, stay tuned.

    Vintage 2017-01-25.

  262. paulski0 says:

    JCH,

    Bates says he is not one of the NOAA whistle blowers that Smith referred way over a year ago.

    Dubious. Too much similarity in the slightly odd “rush to publish” claim. Of course, it’s possible he doesn’t realise he was the whistle blower because Curry was passing on his emails to Smith.

  263. angech says:

    Steven Mosher Thanks agree with all except
    “You, Bates, even Mcintyre, totally misunderstand how the adjustment process works on surface stations and how it differs from satellites.”
    Very unfair on the other two.
    I, on the other hand , need to listen to you and Zeke to get my information.
    Your summary fits in with what Zeke said and expands on it, thank you.
    Most of it fits what I was trying to explain but with much better detail.
    I just feel there is something not right with the way past temperatures are lowered. You do not.
    I do not know how it can be made better.
    Trying to discuss it is like grasping at the air, people talk past each other, get upset when there ideas are challenged and don’t listen. Sometimes themes merge, what you say, what Marco said, but then we all go off on different tangents.
    Thanks again

  264. “I just feel there is something not right… ”

    indeed

  265. Steven Mosher says:

    “I just feel there is something not right with the way past temperatures are lowered. ”

    for SST they are raised.

    Look.

    Suppose you have a bad thermometer

    it reads

    7,7,7,7,7,7,7,

    Then you get a better thermomemter and you realize that the old one reads low by 1

    7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8

    If you want to RECTIFY the series you can change 8 to 7 or 7 to 8.

    The problem with changing 8 to 7…. is you have to keep doing it.
    And anyobody else with a good thermometer wont understand why you record 8 and write down 7

  266. Jim Hunt says:

    Susan – Keep your chin up. The concept progresses:

    http://AFWetware.org/why/

    The nice man from DGM assures me he will get his business partner to view the site on Monday.

    More work to be done!

  267. Magma says:

    I only now noticed that the intolerable economist had taken to Twitter about this affair.

    Seriously, is there something wrong with him (cf. Luboš Motl) or do those pesky gremlins have Twitter and Internet access?

  268. Joshua says:

    angech? –

    Well, there’s a shocker.

    Judith blames the misleading nature of David’s article and Bates’ walkback on the “thumbs on the scale” accusations by hiding behind the Daily Mail’s editors and the busyness of her schedule.

    She continues to lack accountability and the “skeptics” line up to pat her on the back for not stepping up to the plate.

    What say you? Ready to up your game?

  269. JCH says:

    Busy… never heard that one before. Is that a new one?

  270. Joshua says:

    JCH –

    =={ Busy… never heard that one before. Is that a new one? }==

    Yeah, she was too busy….because she was spending her time giving radio interviews to a conspiracy theorist.

    Just because it will never see the light of day over at Judith’s, I’ll cross-post:

    Joshua | February 11, 2017 at 11:15 pm | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I would like to give you credit, Judith, for your most remarkable blog post yet –

    Where you explain that you have no accountability for/not enough time – to speak to the perceptions that Karl was guilty of scientific fraud – that were created by your blog post and by an article written by a journalist you collaborate with and defend as being a quality “investigative journalist” …. even as you take the time to conduct a radio interview with a self-described conspiracy theorist where you don’t speak a word in response to his question about whether Karl was guilty of a criminal offense.

    Olympic level pretzel twisting Judith. But your fans are certainly impressed. In fact, they consider it a country-saving level of performance.

    I’m not sure which to be more impressed with: that you’d offer such lame justifications or that you actually seem to believe that they are viable.

  271. angech says:

    Joshua says: “What say you? Ready to up your game?”
    No need . The cards have been dealt and the outcomes will become evident in the next 6 months.
    Scenario.
    Republicans re ask for more details and e- mails next 2 weeks.
    NOAA refuses, Boss stood down, Inquiry ordered. 2 months
    Or NOAA reluctantly follows orders, 2 months.
    Either nothing to find 25%,
    little to find 25%,
    or a mess 50%.
    At the same tome Trump has to take a gamble, repudiate Paris Accord on his own or ask congress to vote on it. Latter course is the gamble as Democrats oppose and there may be enough warmist republicans to block Trump.
    Best maneuver to cancel it but say the American people should decide through Congress anyway. Puts the pressure back on Democrats and warmist Republicans instead of him.
    This is the way he should go.
    Whichever way this issue will be dragged into it if any malfeasance can be found. Likelihood of an investigation 97%.
    Copyright Crystal Ball Department.

  272. Pingback: David Rose: From the bizarre to the ridiculous | …and Then There's Physics

  273. Joshua says:

    angech –

    As for your scorecard.

    =={ Either nothing to find 25%,
    little to find 25%,
    or a mess 50%. }==

    It’s almost as if you haven’t been watching what goes on with these events.

    The chances of there being a “nothing to find” outcome is practically nil. No matter what those emails might say, they will serve as “something” to confirm the views of everyone who is paying attention

    But anyway, I wasn’t asking for your prediction about the likely outcome (flawed as it is by your biases)… I was asking whether you would step up to the plate to note Judith’s failure in accountability for contributing to the exploitation of whatever are the real scientific issues behind the Bates situation.

  274. angech says:

    I acknowledge “Judith’s accountability for contributing to the exploitation of whatever are the real issues behind the Bates situation.”
    If you are asking for a condemnation of her actions, No. It is not an I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him first situation.
    This is a battle over integrity and in such battles Integrity is often the first casualty then the combatants themselves.

  275. Joshua says:

    =={ If you are asking for a condemnation of her actions, No. }==

    No. I’m not asking you for a “condemnation.” First, “condemnation,” IMO, would have to speak to intent, motivation, etc. I wouldn’t know how to assess that here and wouldn’t want to ask anyone else to do so. Second, it makes no difference whether you “condemn” her or not. Your condemnation amounts to nothing in the real world.

    It was asking you to acknowledge her failure at accountability, as a way to establish a baseline for further communication with your, or as background for future reading of your comments. Your “condemnation” of Judith doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m not interested in moral assessments from this blogospheric banter. I would only ask for “condemnation” from someone if I were trying to make some kind of moral assessment. I don’t know you, so I can’t evaluate your morals.

    Your acknowledgement of her lack of accountability means something to me because it suggests that you’re willing to account for your own biases. It tells me something about you. Something that I can meaningfully interpret from blog comments.

    =={ This is a battle over integrity and in such battles Integrity is often the first casualty then the combatants themselves. }==

    This is an area where you and I diverge. I don’t see it as a matter of integrity. I see it as a matter of openness to addressing how bias influences reasoning.

  276. Pingback: 3 questions à se poser quand une étude est contestée | Agence Science-Presse – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  277. Pingback: La campagna acquisti delle angurie - Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

  278. Keith McClary says:

    Press regulator censures Mail on Sunday for global warming claims

    > Claims in the Mail on Sunday that global warming data had been exaggerated in order to secure the Paris climate change agreement have been criticised by the UK’s press regulator.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/17/press-regulator-censures-mail-on-sunday-for-global-warming-claims

  279. Keith,
    Yes, I saw that. Thanks.

  280. Jim Hunt says:

    For the back story see:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/climategate-2/

    Whilst IPSO were doing their interminable due diligence the Mail felt the need to correct one of their corrections to another one of David Rose’s “Climategate 2” stories.

    At long last IPSO have sharpened their teeth slightly, but the damage was done 7 months ago and was duplicated across the denialosphere with great alacrity. Do you suppose that all the clones will now correct their misinformation in similar fashion to the Mail?

  281. Pingback: Bad Astronomy | UK media watchdog rules Daily Mail climate science denial article was ‘significantly misleading’ – ADC Voice

  282. Pingback: Bad Astronomy | UK media watchdog rules Daily Mail climate science denial article was ‘significantly misleading’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s