It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High ranking Global Warming scientist whistleblows on manipulated data ...

page: 2
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I do not pretend to know all the answers. Nor do I take a real position on this subject. I do know that Frederick Seitz is an accomplished scientist with a resume that rivals any. I also know that scientists were caught altering data in specific carbon models.

I do find it suspicious that people have lost jobs, tenure, and credibility just for questioning data.

AAC




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

You might wanna do the reading yourself before continuing a false narrative. This project is in continuation from 1997.

AAC



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

For those interested.

Link to an essay by John Bates, explaining his work at NOAA, the issues surrounding the Karl study and his decision to go public in his own words.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR

Ah interesting, guess it is valid Daily Mail article.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR





Link to an essay by John Bates, explaining his work at NOAA, the issues surrounding the Karl study and his decision to go public in his own words.


Thanks for that
it is a very detailed account of how and what happened and will raise eyebrows if this story breaks even further. It all depends on who's agenda takes precedence wether we see much more of this in the MSM



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtWillR


A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

For those interested.

Link to an essay by John Bates, explaining his work at NOAA, the issues surrounding the Karl study and his decision to go public in his own words.


Thank you for the link, most interesting.
I'll be sharing this with my friends who think the current administration is trying to delete the existing data.


The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Phage

Yes I do Phage, they have done what they always do, present facts that are hard to verify, like the data that was lost due to a hard drive failure FFS, is this the standard of science we are talking about. It is the obvious need, by these people, to present the worst possible scenarios to create the most alarming case they can.

This is what science has been reduced to by unethical people who should be ashamed of themselves for discrediting what was once a noble pursuit.


There are political partisans and then there are Global warming partisans.

edit on 4-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtWillR
Bateses article seems to be about sloppy archiving of temperature model datasets and a lack of adherence to established protocols. The result being that those using the datasets didn't necessarily know from which model version the data was derived, thus making review problematic.

The article does not seem to claim that data used for K15 was intentionally manipulated. And it is true there was a good deal of criticism of the study. Criticism which led, as I said earlier, to independent efforts to verify the conclusions by use of other datasets.

So, even though the conclusion reached in K15 has been independently reproduced (which is the was it is supposed to work), openness and rigorous standards in making data available are, indeed, crucial to climate science.


edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




To summarize…

“breached its own rules on scientific integrity”

“based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data”

“never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process”

“maximised warming”

“minimised documentation”

“standards were flagrantly ignored”

“tried to combine two previously separate sets of records”

“violated NOAA rules”

“computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure”

“NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up”

“rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda”



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



The article does not seem to claim that data used for K15 was intentionally manipulated. And it is true there was a good deal of criticism of the study. Criticism which led, as I said earlier, to independent efforts to verify the conclusions by use of other datasets.


Quote from Bates essay


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


Why would he do that, it is his job to follow these procedures to assure transparency and data for future scientific study.


The withholding of the operational version of this important update came in the middle of a major ENSO event, thereby depriving the public of an important source of updated information, apparently for the sole purpose of Mr. Karl using the data in his paper before making the data available to the public.
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


Well that sounds pretty FU to me!



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




Why would he do that, it is his job to follow these procedures to assure transparency and data for future scientific study.
I don't know why he did not follow the recommended protocols.



Well that sounds pretty FU to me!
Yes. Well, grandstanding has often reared it's head in science.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ArtWillR

The article does not seem to claim that data used for K15 was intentionally manipulated. And it is true there was a good deal of criticism of the study. Criticism which led, as I said earlier, to independent efforts to verify the conclusions by use of other datasets.



From the same article:




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.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Actually Phage, this story has been picked up by WSJ "the Hockey Schtick

hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca...




For instance, NOAA states its annual temperature estimate as an “anomaly” in relation to the 20th-century average. Do you really believe government scientists can reconstruct a global average temperature for years in the first half of the 20th century with sufficient accuracy to allow comparisons of 1/100ths of a degree? You start to notice other things. The numbers keep changing. Years 2005 and 2010 were exactly tied in 2010, but now 2010 is slightly warmer, just enough to impart an upward slope to any graph that ignores statistical uncertainty.


And Judith Curry (another retired climatologist) has a far more detailed explanation of the evidence in her blog

judithcurry.com...




In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.


She states that Dr. Bates worked internally with NOAA about his concerns on the "pausebuster data set" but was ignored or overruled by the Director Karl. After he retired, he approached the Washington Post about the story but was refused publication. Judith Curry has explained how it came about that the story was released to the Daily Mail in the UK.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet
Yeah.
That "in an effort..." statement would be seem to be an opinion. It may be valid or not.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The grandstanding isn't the issue, It is the fact that it has been observed and recorded by a high authority on this subject, that he cudgelled researchers and scientists to provide the figures he wanted. That is NOT science.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




that he cudgelled researchers and scientists to provide the figures he wanted.
Can you point out where that claim is made?

Do you think that Bates thinks AGW is a hoax?

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Sure!



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.


And this is the general tone coming from Bates if you read carefully.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

That quote has been quoted several times, thanks. I don't see "cudgelling" in there.



And this is the general tone coming from Bates if you read carefully.
Indeed. There is clearly no love lost between Bates and Karl. However, I see no unequivocal statement about data being deliberately distorted.

Do you think that Bates thinks AGW is a hoax?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




Do you think that Bates thinks AGW is a hoax?


No! I think he is a tiny cog in a huge machine who has had his head down bum up trying his best to be a scientist. I doubt very much he has much interest in wether AGW is a hoax or not, he is just looking at the data, if the data is crap then the whole process is crap. Nobody should pay heed to crap information but that information has been presented to our world leaders and that will have an impact on all of us.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72




I doubt very much he has much interest in wether AGW is a hoax or not, he is just looking at the data, if the data is crap then the whole process is crap.

Did he say the data is crap? Did he say it is not valid?

Does the fact that the basic conclusion of K15 was verified by independent researchers, using different datasets mean anything to you?



edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join