Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation

[Deleted]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...r-charges.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karl denied the paper was released to boost the plan.

Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized 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.”

For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.

“They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “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.”
Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming.

A NOAA spokesman, in an email to The Washington Times, said NOAA “stands behind its world-class scientists” but also that it “takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”

Bates is not the first to question Karl’s conclusions. A paper by Canadian climate modeler John Fyfe questioned the 2015 study. As he put it, in a 2016 article from the journal Nature Climate Change, “there is a mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what observations are showing. We can’t ignore it.”

Climate scientists have closed ranks around Karl. A study published last month in Science Advances, by Zeke Hausfather of University of California Berkeley and five others, claims to confirm Karl’s findings.

In addition, climate scientist Peter Thorne, who has worked with the NOAA, said Bates wasn’t involved in the work that he’s criticizing. Bates disputed the assertion.

While Karl, and other scientists who believe man-made climate change poses a major threat had the ear of the Obama administration, President Trump has shown signs of skepticism. It remains to be seen from which scientists he will take his cue.

Hmmmmmmmmm....

[Sky High]

alright, and...?

[Orbitus]

alright, and...?

Of course Taft didn't bother to add anything to it, he didn't understand the information, much like Fox News didn't understand it.

[s_bushido]

Somehow, this reminds me of every time I've heard a creationist trot out Stephen Jay Gould and how his ideas somehow disproved evolution, despite them doing no such thing. Hmmmmmmmmm....indeed.

[Ahhdurr]

Conspiracy theory thread?

[Sky High]

Of course Taft didn't bother to add anything to it, he didn't understand the information, much like Fox News didn't understand it.

well all I get from the article is the Obama administration lied about how climate change is getting worse. not you know, the usual talking point that man made climate change isn't a thing. which, yeah shame on them for bending the truth but at the same time I cant find myself being upset since it seems we're making some progress in the right direction.

[Grimbold21]

Of course Taft didn't bother to add anything to it, he didn't understand the information, much like Fox News didn't understand it.

Im quite sure you're familiar with the concept of "bait"

[Garnier Fructis]

I forget, are we 'warming but it's not us' or 'it's not warming.' Because it seems like people jump between these mutually contradictory positions as needed.

Anyways, this result has been confirmed by multiple others so the only legitimate complaint the whistleblower has is about the conduct and not the results. You guys are acting like relativity cranks, who think that disproving 1 thing will somehow overthrow an entire theory. It won't, but I'm guessing you guys aren't going to give up that fool's errand.

[Ripster42]

"Ships generate heat," lol. The people who come up with these objections are hilarious.

The "slow down in warming" is based on selectively choosing when to start your data set.

[Frood]

...said the impartial man with the Trump avatar.

I wonder why climate change denying politicians would question peer-reviewed research because of an anonymous 'whistle blower'.

Oh, right.

[Garnier Fructis]

It remains to be seen from which scientists he will take his cue.

As if this wasn't already abundantly clear.

- - - Updated - - -

The "slow down in warming" is based on selectively choosing when to start your data set.

And, in part, ignores that the system is stochastic in nature.

[Waniou]

So... one guy says there was a problem with the paper, even though he reportedly didn't have anything to do with it = "Federal scientist cooked climate change books"?

[Post]

K, we can assume every single thing he wrote he made up on the spot. Now we can look at the other ridiculous amounts of research and studies that still prove global warming/climate change is a man made thing (at least to the extent that it's happening now).

[Mayhem]

K, we can assume every single thing he wrote he made up on the spot. Now we can look at the other ridiculous amounts of research and studies that still prove global warming/climate change is a man made thing (at least to the extent that it's happening now).

NO, NO, no no nononono... that´s not how it works.

If one scientist lied then every scientist lies!

One article is fake, every news outlet produces fake news.

... it´s a pattern, easy to follow, always wrong, perfect for simple minded folks.

[Garnier Fructis]

K, we can assume every single thing he wrote he made up on the spot. Now we can look at the other ridiculous amounts of research and studies that still prove global warming/climate change is a man made thing (at least to the extent that it's happening now).

They don't care. The crank thought process is that if they can disprove something they view as fundamental, then they win.

The relativity cranks, for example, are convinced that they can topple all of SR and GR if they can just disprove the Michelson Morley experiment. Which is just monumental idiocy given that we have mountains of evidence aside from the MM experiment.

It's sort of the same idea here, but more inane. Because they haven't sat down and thought through the immediate implications of 'proving' that global warming has stopped. Which is how to reconcile 'climate change has always happened because of natural cycles' with 'it's not happening.'

The only real difference between relativity cranks and climate cranks is that relativity cranks are funny, because everyone knows that they have no influence whatsoever.

[Post]

They don't care. The crank thought process is that if they can disprove something they view as fundamental, then they win.

It's a "feel good" stance to take, it feels good to believe that we aren't screwing things up, and it feels good to believe you're smarter than the "scam" that is global warming. It's difficult to change peoples' minds when not believing you makes them feel like they're actually being the smart ones.

[Waniou]

They don't care. The crank thought process is that if they can disprove something they view as fundamental, then they win.

The relativity cranks, for example, are convinced that they can topple all of SR and GR if they can just disprove the Michelson Morley experiment. Which is just monumental idiocy given that we have mountains of evidence aside from the MM experiment.

It's sort of the same idea here, but more inane. Because they haven't sat down and thought through the immediate implications of 'proving' that global warming has stopped. Which is how to reconcile 'climate change has always happened because of natural cycles' with 'it's not happening.'

The only real difference between relativity cranks and climate cranks is that relativity cranks are funny, because everyone knows that they have no influence whatsoever.

The author of the article that this one is based on is David Rose at the Daily Mail and for some reason, he's made it his mission to try to "disprove" global warming by showing that it stopped in 1998 and is not beyond being somewhat loose with the truth in order to try do this.

[Pendulous]

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records

Probably not.

[schwarzkopf]

Fun fact: Science isn't a single person.

If it was, we'd call it religion

[Soeroah]

I guess the question comes down to this: is it worse to base claims on tweaked data, as in this alleged case, or to make up wild claims that outright contradict reality, as Trump enjoys doing?