Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

[bdgwx]

Back to the central theme of this thread and to review.

- No, a NOAA scientists (Bates) did not say that climate records were manipulated. David Rose from the Daily Mail made that up. It's fake news. 

- No, Karl did not commit any review blunders or rush his research through publication. If any blunders were made they were actually made under Bates' authority.

Carbon Brief has a good write up about all of the inaccuracies contained in David Rose's fake news article.

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

And here is the official MITRE investigation that was released last month.

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

 

[snowlover91]

On 1/26/2019 at 3:08 PM, bdgwx said:

Yes. I'm aware of climategate and I skimmed your link which I had not previously seen before. I don't typically make it a habit of reading material from questionable sources which is why I had not seen it before. Although at least 8 independent reviews concluded that there was no data hiding, fraudulent manipulation, or wrong doing of any kind related to the science of climate change as it relates to cliamtegate I personally find Mann et. al.'s style abrasive and unprofessional and I think the climategate emails justify my opinion. That's just my opinion. What's not my opinion is that Mann et. al.'s scientific work (that which is published in peer review journals) is absolutely not fraudulent in any way and, in fact, has been corroborated by multiple independent sources. 

In regards to the link you posted I have no way of verifying it's accuracy. One thing I've learned is that when presented with literature which can be found on a conspiracy theory website (assassinationscience.com), from a political lobby group (Lavoiser Group) hostile towards science, from a guy with questionable credibility (John Costella), without being properly vetted for accuracy, and with no accountability (Costella gets to say whatever he wants without consequence) your BS meter should at least be flashing yellow if not red. I'm not saying John Costella has necessarily misrepresented what happened (though it is possible), but I have to approach this with caution. You should too.

And you can't blame me for being for cautious. Afterall, it was the Daily Mail's David Rose (who also has a similar credibility problem) that created the original fake news article central this thread that caused so many people to get duped into erroneously believing that NOAA commits fraud in regards to climate data which is patently false (refer to the MITRE investigation report here). I'm not saying your concerns aren't legitimate. I'm not saying there aren't bad apples. What I'm saying is that more often than not these claims of fraud seldom get substantiated and are often discovered to have fraudulent motivations themselves. And remember, the IPCC had I believe nearly 3,500 expert reviewers for AR5 of which John Costella found 5 to be "colourful characters". So you tell me...does Costella make the case that the entirety of the climate science is wrong?

Anyway, here the reports from the real investigations related to climategate.

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b

https://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

https://www.nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A09120086.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/response-preface.pdf

First of all, the climategate emails are publically accessible. That link I provided has the content of the email along with a domain with the original leaked email saved on it. You can go to numerous other websites and confirm that the email content is indeed real. The PDF simply points out key concerning emails and discusses the context of them. There are many concerning things contained within.

Part of the problem today is when people are inclined to believe these “independent” reviews like you cited and blindly accepting them. I prefer to do my own research and make my own conclusions. If you do some digging you’ll see there are some serious problems with how those “independent” reviews were conducted. Having said that, let’s look at a few key emails to determine whether some serious issues were ongoing or not. 

“I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uninformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents. However, if an “independent group” such as you guys at the Climatic Research Unit could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue. If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished Climatic Research Unit Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control...”

“Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!”

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

“Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, stated: ‘The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.’” https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/#4e82f3021323

“A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleoclimatology ... work as supporting your work. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other results. Although these all show the “hockey stick” shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleoclimatology results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.”

Neville Nicholls, of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne,
Australia, asks Phil Jones:
Do you expect to get a call from Congress?
Jones replies:
“I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom Wigley) for the last 25 years.”
The fact that Jones received these grant moneys from a foreign government department is not an issue; it is a normal and healthy part of scientific research. What is astounding is his hiding of the fact. It is standard scientific practice to acknowledge all sources of funding, however indirect.

Phil Jones states, “There is an issue coming up in the IPCC. Every graph needs uncertainty bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.”

 

These are just a few examples. If you have no problem with any of these issues then it’s pointless to debate this further. Hiding the data, deleting emails, using uncertainty bars with no regard to their accuracy, taking money without declaring it publically, and manipulating the “independent” review and peer review process are all serious issues that we found out about only because of the leaked emails. How much more of this is going on that we have no clue about? Why are they so concerned with hiding the data rather than being transparent? Based on the content of the emails it’s obvious these men have a LARGE and extensive network they use to influence the outcome and perception of AGW. Instead of skimming the emails you might find it insightful to read them, do some digging and make your own conclusions rather than letting those reports you cited form the basis of your opinion.

Having said that, I’m not going to engage in this discussion further as it simply is a waste of time for me to keep typing out responses here and I’d rather use my time in a much more beneficial manner. 

[chubbs]

6 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Having said that, I’m not going to engage in this discussion further as it simply is a waste of time for me to keep typing out responses here and I’d rather use my time in a much more beneficial manner. 

Thank you!!!!!!!!

[Ski Patroller]

On 1/25/2019 at 12:57 AM, snowlover91 said:

 

Read what was posted. If you want to advance in one of these fields then research needs to agree with AGW theory or else you have no future in said field. That’s pretty easy to understand. I’m not saying it’s a coordinated effort or hoax. I’m saying the emphasis on AGW, “saving the planet”, and other similar ideals are widely perpetrated in both the media and academia. To that end the pressure is to conform to that standard and it’s quite easy for scientific research to succumb to a “group think” mentality when this type of emphasis is in place. Whether intentional or not the pressure pushes people that direction. 

I also have to disagree about climate scientists having nothing to gain. They have everything to gain. Their current job stability, funding, grants, opportunities to advance in their field, etc. There are immense amounts of money used for “green” projects in countries all over the world, we are talking billions and billions of dollars. Governments fund various projects, grants, research fields, etc dealing with climate change and other areas. It’s ludicrous to say these people have nothing to gain.

Just in the US alone here are some numbers concerning tax payer money going to climate change related uses. https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

“From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%.

If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.”

It's almost as if this writer has no understanding whatsoever about how science is done. And citing increases in funding as proof of conspiracy ignores the fact that money follows the problem, not the other way around. I work in a dendrochronology lab and the claims in this post are outright laughable and right out of the Fox News playbook. No legit scientist is going to put his entire career on the line by faking data - all of which is subject to peer review and shared with other researchers who scrutinize every word.

Denial is nothing but right-wing politics at its frothy worst. Our lab gets emails all of the time from deniers, and we don't respond, having learned that such people are borderline cultists in their denial. 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 2/7/2017 at 6:21 PM, so_whats_happening said:

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

Bingo!

You partially answered your previous question -  You asked why in the context of 'what would it gain' ?    ...Well, denying man's contribution thus allows man's various constituencies to keep doing what whatever it is they want. In most case, which is to make money - that's why, but in second place behind that... not having to change their way of life.  

The only reason why the denial, "dirty money" payout phenomenon/ mechanism works is because climate change is a transcendental (for lack of better word...) specter.  One stands on a railroad track ... They hear the iron begin to whir under their feet. They see the smoke rising around the bend, ...Those are tangible indications of a threat to their well being.   Moving off the track ensues with a judicious and pragmatically fast response. 

Global warming?  No one can sees the train ... Oh, they read about heat waves and desiccated land, warming oceans... but the actual world around them bears no immediate impression of their being a problem.  

Humanity doesn't see reality through the same lens as scientist.  Humanity doesn't see nature and reality through the same lens as even enthusiast who chose to research on their own ... and are reasonably better versed in this crap. The total bastion of those in the know ... does not compare on the same scale as the enormous mass of people that don't know.  And with all that potential ballast ... all one has to say to garner momentum in their favor, is any thing that 'sounds' intelligent that not only counter-acts the moral necessity to act ... but allows said ballast to continue in their present way of life, and so... dimming(adding) to empirical data actually can motivate a desired response..

I have a circle of friends in the Harvard and MIT communities ...in the tenured professorship rank and file of higher academia ...and they all concur: the issue with GW and anthropogenic causality is a sociological one more so than anything else.  There needs to be some way to make the threat tangible to the corporeal senses ... because from Mt Vesuvius to Katrina and all scales in between, threats don't mean much to common people and their heads of state.

[snowlover91]

On 2/10/2019 at 9:10 AM, FlyingGuy said:

It's almost as if this writer has no understanding whatsoever about how science is done. And citing increases in funding as proof of conspiracy ignores the fact that money follows the problem, not the other way around. I work in a dendrochronology lab and the claims in this post are outright laughable and right out of the Fox News playbook. No legit scientist is going to put his entire career on the line by faking data - all of which is subject to peer review and shared with other researchers who scrutinize every word.

Denial is nothing but right-wing politics at its frothy worst. Our lab gets emails all of the time from deniers, and we don't respond, having learned that such people are borderline cultists in their denial. 

 

There are plenty who are in the climate field and have personally experienced the things I’ve discussed. Read Judith Curry as one example of a prominent climate scientist who has first hand accounts of various issues. 

You would also do well to read the various emails that have been released over the years. I’ve posted some prominent examples and there are plenty of others suggesting data manipulation and other ethically questionable tactics and approaches. 

Like I said previously there’s nothing more I can add to this topic. People make up their minds either as an AGW proponent or skeptic and it’s nearly impossible to change their minds no matter what data is presented. I have better things to do and enjoy in life than waste my time on a nearly dead forum debating people who won’t change their minds on the issue.