Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

[CTWeatherFreak]

This has been reported on several sites.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444668/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa

Truth, Politics, or both?  Thoughts?

[Msalgado]

Lamar Smith being full of it per usual.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/07/as-the-planet-warms-doubters-launch-a-new-attack-on-a-famous-climate-change-study/?postshare=2341486495736205&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.69af8fecbdbf

[so_whats_happening]

I dont get it what would be the purpose in lieing about Climate Change? Is it for funding purposes? Im not swaying one side or the other but just what would be the reason for having to change data, what would it prove?

[CTWeatherFreak]

As with most things, if you want to know whats going on, follow the money; big bucks involved with alternate technologies.   Specifically, in the article, its being claimed the data was fudged so as to better fit  the Obama narrative leading up to the Paris climate change conference..

[Msalgado]

Wait, so now Obama is behind this too?  Amazing.  I never understood the follow the money argument.  Scientists - especially those working for government agencies like NOAA, are far from rich.  And why does that logic never apply to people like Lamar Smith and his campaign contributions from oil companies?  Where's the critical thinking here?

[CTWeatherFreak]

It does apply to folks like Smith.   I think you have to look at the influence of money on every argument thats made.  Andi its not just the scientists as individuals who have something to gain; consider that many of the projects they work on are funded by special interest groups, ie lobbies. 

[so_whats_happening]

Just now, Msalgado said:

Wait, so now Obama is behind this too?  Amazing.  I never understood the follow the money argument.  Scientists - especially those working for government agencies like NOAA, are far from rich.  And why does that logic never apply to people like Lamar Smith and his campaign contributions from oil companies?  Where's the critical thinking here?

I was just thinking that lol to me it just seems like dirty money got into some peoples pockets to put the hush factor out there or to overblow the situation. There is no denying the Earth has been warming the biggest issues have always been how much influence humans are putting on the system and in what ways that is being done. Its nice to see the back forth but it does become very much a nuissance when same things get said over and over without data properly backing things up. 

 

I personally have no climate studying besides my basic for Met classes and a 400 level undergrad class, that is why I ask some of these questions and yes I have doubts of my own but personally am not established enough to go on a full on rant about topics like climate change. I get some honk the horn a little too much and some go way over into parking lot of a baseball stadium to get their points across. Just is frustrating if we can not just get factual information out there without people always throwing their opinions based off the data when its right in front. lol

[FloridaJohn]

Here's an interesting article that talks about the money climate scientists make and how they get that money.

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong

"So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000. "

"If they really wanted to make money at Penn State, they'd be coaching football or basketball. If they wanted to make money doing the sort of data analysis or modeling of complex systems that climatologists perform all the time, of course, they should go to Wall Street. "

[FloridaJohn]

For comparison, we can see here that Lamar Smith makes $174,000 per year.

 

[Jack Frost]

 

My dear sheople:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841

 

But enough about this - we have a legit plowable snowstorm to track in the NE!

 

 

 

 

 

[HailMan06]

1 hour ago, Msalgado said:

Wait, so now Obama is behind this too?  Amazing.  I never understood the follow the money argument.  Scientists - especially those working for government agencies like NOAA, are far from rich.  And why does that logic never apply to people like Lamar Smith and his campaign contributions from oil companies?  Where's the critical thinking here?

Climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Amirite?

[so_whats_happening]

4 minutes ago, Jack Frost said:

 

My dear sheople:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841

 

But enough about this - we have a legit plowable snowstorm to track in the NE!

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does this have to do with anything here? lol I mean you tell us to be nice to one another and post factual evidence yet you are calling people --> sheople. Come on with that if you want anyone to take you seriously post something validating your points other then obscure quotes.

[chubbs]

This is much to do about nothing, a sign of the times, "fake news":

1) The changes made in the NOAA update were not that large in the big scheme of things.

2) There are alternate data  that show similar warming.

3) The most controversial part, the sea surface temperatures. have since been tested against independent data and were found to be better than other SST data sets.

4) The data is available and anyone can analyze as they see fit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/07/as-the-planet-warms-doubters-launch-a-new-attack-on-a-famous-climate-change-study/?utm_term=.bf499617f6c8

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

 

[Msalgado]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/2015-climate-study-data.html?_r=0

[Jack Frost]

So let's get this straight.  The science - which is settled - has not advanced to the point that we can simply rely on actual measurements - be it temperature, sea level, etc.  So, let's rely on "independent" groups to "adjust" the data.  Who are two such groups?  The National Climate Data Center and Berkeley Earth.

Leaving NCDC aside for the moment, what do we know about Berkeley Earth?  Well, for starters, it is headed up by Richard Muller.  Who is Richard Muller?  From the Berkeley Earth website:  

"Richard Muller is Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, President of Muller & Associates LLC, and a Managing Partner at Global Shale." (emphasis added)

University of California at Berkeley???  

Adjusting climate data??

Shocking?

Not.  

Credible?  

Not!!!!

 

 

[PhillipS]

11 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

So let's get this straight.  The science - which is settled - has not advanced to the point that we can simply rely on actual measurements - be it temperature, sea level, etc.  So, let's rely on "independent" groups to "adjust" the data.  Who are two such groups?  The National Climate Data Center and Berkeley Earth.

Leaving NCDC aside for the moment, what do we know about Berkeley Earth?  Well, for starters, it is headed up by Richard Muller.  Who is Richard Muller?  From the Berkeley Earth website:  

"Richard Muller is Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, President of Muller & Associates LLC, and a Managing Partner at Global Shale." (emphasis added)

University of California at Berkeley???  

Adjusting climate data??

Shocking?

Not.  

Credible?  

Not!!!!

 

 

Remember that Dr Muller was selected to head the BEST project by the Koch Brothers - so he isn't a 'Warmist' by any stretch.  The methodology they used for their research has been open and transparent - so critics have had years to critique their approach.  But the so-called 'skeptics' haven't done that, have they?  And their findings have been peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature - so critics have had years to refutes any or all of their findings.  But the so-called 'skeptics' haven't done that either, have they?

Your attack by innuendo is meaningless in a technical discussion.  If you have some peer-reviewed research which refutes the BEST findings then by all means share it.  Otherwise you're just trolling.

[FloridaJohn]

1 hour ago, PhillipS said:

Remember that Dr Muller was selected to head the BEST project by the Koch Brothers - so he isn't a 'Warmist' by any stretch.

Here is Dr. Muller's reasoning behind his change of mind from being skeptical to joining the scientific consensus:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic by RICHARD A. MULLER

"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

[donsutherland1]

Apparently, there seems to be contextual information related to Dr. Bates' criticism of the Karl paper.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/business/energy-environment/climate-change-dispute-john-bates.html

[friedmators]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Apparently, there seems to be contextual information related to Dr. Bates' criticism of the Karl paper.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/business/energy-environment/climate-change-dispute-john-bates.html

I am still confused.  So was it an archiving issue or a sea surface/ship data swap issue?  Both are mentioned.

[TomFalater]

This is a good topic. I know a few scientists who are bullied and suppressed from expressing their opinion on the theory of global warming. It's one of those areas of science that has been politicized. Tom Falater

[FloridaJohn]

11 minutes ago, TomFalater said:

This is a good topic. I know a few scientists who are bullied and suppressed from expressing their opinion on the theory of global warming. It's one of those areas of science that has been politicized. Tom Falater

The point of this topic, however, is that neither of those things actually happened. One guy had a problem with some office politics, and wrote on his personal blog his dissatisfaction. The climate change deniers took that post and created a completely inaccurate story that was not based on the guy's original problem. He even later clarified that those stories were inaccurate.

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, friedmators said:

I am still confused.  So was it an archiving issue or a sea surface/ship data swap issue?  Both are mentioned.

Dr. Bates' clarification seemed to suggest that his issue concerned archiving. The Daily Mail quoted him on processing and says that it stands by the quote. Given that Dr. Bates' clarification, I suspect the issue dealt with archiving, not processing. I can see why a journalist might confuse the two, and that could well have occurred. In any case, there were better ways for Dr. Bates to address his concern that he should have pursued.

[Hambone]

On 2/7/2017 at 6:06 PM, so_whats_happening said:

I dont get it what would be the purpose in lieing about Climate Change? Is it for funding purposes? Im not swaying one side or the other but just what would be the reason for having to change data, what would it prove?

Political agenda, funding, fear of reprisal from superiors who were pushing for the manipulation.

[chubbs]

On 2/23/2017 at 6:27 PM, Hambone said:

Political agenda, funding, fear of reprisal from superiors who were pushing for the manipulation.

My irony meter is going offscale. Your description is much more apt for Fox news, Breitbart or similar than a civil service employee nearing retirement.

[Jack Frost]

On February 25, 2017 at 7:48 AM, chubbs said:

My irony meter is going offscale. Your description is much more apt for Fox news, Breitbart or similar than a civil service employee nearing retirement.

Once again. attack the messenger and ignore the message.......

[bdgwx]

New information related to this thread which was released just a few weeks ago...

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report.pdf

It was concluded that there was no wrong doing or fraudulent manipulation of data on the part of Karl and that it was actually Bates who committed the review blunders that he accused Karl of.

Here's Karl's original paper that is the subject of this thread.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

[WidreMann]

https://twitter.com/ScottWesterfeld/status/446805144781348865 https://twitter.com/ScottWesterfeld/status/446805144781348865

Seriously, y'all. Conspiracies about climate scientists, uhh, making up something for the purpose of, uhh, I guess money somehow. Everyone else is clean, though. There are clearly no other industries or political interests that would want to deny or downplay their involvement in negatively affecting the climate. There is no history of corporations and other moneyed concerns covering up or denying their acts of pollution. No, it's the folks who call it out who have something to gain like, I dunno, I guess a livable planet? I'm really at a loss for what kinf of conspiracy there could possibly be, especially from groups that publicly release their data and reports regularly.

Deniers are a special breed of stupid.

[snowlover91]

1 hour ago, WidreMann said:

https://twitter.com/ScottWesterfeld/status/446805144781348865 https://twitter.com/ScottWesterfeld/status/446805144781348865

Seriously, y'all. Conspiracies about climate scientists, uhh, making up something for the purpose of, uhh, I guess money somehow. Everyone else is clean, though. There are clearly no other industries or political interests that would want to deny or downplay their involvement in negatively affecting the climate. There is no history of corporations and other moneyed concerns covering up or denying their acts of pollution. No, it's the folks who call it out who have something to gain like, I dunno, I guess a livable planet? I'm really at a loss for what kinf of conspiracy there could possibly be, especially from groups that publicly release their data and reports regularly.

Deniers are a special breed of stupid.

Well some prominent AGW proponents have publicly admitted reasons why. 

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

And these golden nuggets.

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is." 

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."

Source 

[BillT]

when you have emails of the conspiracy and statements from those involved saying their intent very difficult to discuss with those the deny FACT and reality.......good luck not going to waste my time snowlover you are dealing in reality versus a computerized religion of the climate

[LibertyBell]

On 2/25/2017 at 7:48 AM, chubbs said:

My irony meter is going offscale. Your description is much more apt for Fox news, Breitbart or similar than a civil service employee nearing retirement.

yep and what about all the corrupt corporate interests that lie about science- exxon covering up climate research in the 70s (and the fact that they were allowed to merge with mobil makes it even worse, supermergers are a cancer), the sugar industry paying researchers to hide the side effects of sugar consumption at the back of the Harvard library until it was exposed, Merck forging research data on Vioxx.  Monsanto bribing researchers, etc (and another horrible supermerger/acquisition allowed there, with Bayer), companies like Dow and Dupont burying toxic chemicals in superfund sites, the chemical lobby bribing politicians to make them not regulate dangerous pesticides and chemicals in our food (and being members of the regulatory agencies themselves), stuff that doesn't happen in Europe.  So it's ironic that industry would be crying out when they are the ones who commit most of the felonies.