"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper."

"NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XuBZlsRl

What a disgrace. It's mind boggling just how many swamps need to be drained.

Sack the lot.

The oligarchy want to create a $7 trillion dollar per annum market to play their game, by taxing all people on the Earth the free air they breathe.

Soon we'll have a methane meter attached to our arses so they can tax our farts as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4

Thanks Lee,
it's amazing how so many gullible people like Jovial have been conned.

Yes I always rely on "science" published in the Daily Mail

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday/

An attack by the ‘The Mail on Sunday’ on the accuracy and integrity of a recent paper on global warming is based on inaccurate and misleading claims, including a fake graph.

The article by David Rose appears in the 5 February issue of the newspaper under the headline ‘Exposed: How world leaders were duped over global warming’. The article was first published on the newspaper’s website on 4 February.

The claim that global warming stopped in 1998 became a key talking point for ‘sceptics’ in 2006 after ‘The Sunday Telegraph’ published an article by the late Dr Bob Carter, a geologist based in New Zealand.

Although global temperature records compiled by the UK Met Office (TXT), NOAA (CSV) and NASA (TXT) show that 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998, many climate change ‘sceptics’ have continued to falsely assert that there has been no real warming over the past 18 years.

Breitbart is another favorite source of Lee. Anything but real science, basically. I have decided to just ignore him.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 11:52am:

Breitbart is another favorite source of Lee. Anything but real science, basically. I have decided to just ignore him.

Only because you can't explain how "Bates is wrong"

You l\know Snopes is not the best source, don't you?

But from it -

"they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records ....."

End of quote in Snopes


lee wrote on Feb 6^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:

This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend. The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

Nothing to worry about at all. ;)

NOAA’s USHCN stations are used to create the US portion of GHCN.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/clip_image002_thumb.png

Nothing to worry about with the land based dataset. Of course you can feel free to check the data yourself.

Zeke Hausfather (2017) "the hiatus disproven again"

"The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this “cold bias,” researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. "


"But the buoys report slightly cooler temperatures because they measure water directly from the ocean instead of after a trip through a warm engine room."


http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/04/global-warming-hiatus-disproved-again/

So they admit that the ship's readings impart a warming bias.

We'll ignore the warming bias and correct for a "cooling bias" in the buoys.

Sounds more like they don't want to junk the ships' temperatures. But is it the way science should be done?

What happened to John Taverner? He actually knew stuff!

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

What happened to John Taverner? He actually knew stuff!

Yeah, He actually backed the Karl et al paper.

Edit: The Karl et al paper had a significance of 0.1.  A good significance is 0.01 to 0.05. So the Karl et al paper was crap.

Quote:

NOAA and Tom Karl's "Pausebuster" Paper Busted

The story comes from a climate denier organisation, it smells like fake news it looks like fake news and many of the statements made are known to be incorrect.

Fake News story.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 7:26pm:

Quote: NOAA and Tom Karl's "Pausebuster" Paper Busted The story comes from a climate denier organisation, it smells like fake news it looks like fake news and many of the statements made are known to be incorrect. Fake News story.

So we'll ignore the good Doctor, now ex-NOAA, and focus on the medium not the message. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Please define the "many statements known to be incorrect"

They have not refuted the use of the unverified and unstable models, which are central to the argument.

The models haven't been QA/QC cleared, indeed they haven't claimed that; merely skirted the issue. So it not merely an administrative thing, as they they are trying to claim.

Would you fly in a plane built based on a model that hadn't passed QA/QC?

Conspiracy theorist much. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

You l\know Snopes is not the best source, don't you? But from it - "they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records ....." End of quote in Snopes lee wrote on Feb 6th, 2017 at 9:56pm: This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend. The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’. Nothing to worry about at all. ;) NOAA’s USHCN stations are used to create the US portion of GHCN. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/clip_image002_thumb.png Nothing to worry about with the land based dataset. Of course you can feel free to check the data yourself. Zeke Hausfather (2017) "the hiatus disproven again" "The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming. After correcting for this “cold bias,” researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. " "But the buoys report slightly cooler temperatures because they measure water directly from the ocean instead of after a trip through a warm engine room." http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/04/global-warming-hiatus-disproved-again/ So they admit that the ship's readings impart a warming bias. We'll ignore the warming bias and correct for a "cooling bias" in the buoys. Sounds more like they don't want to junk the ships' temperatures. But is it the way science should be done?

Quote:

Nothing to worry about with the land based dataset.

In the report being criticised the finding was that land based data didn't contribute much ?

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 7:26pm: Quote: NOAA and Tom Karl's "Pausebuster" Paper Busted The story comes from a climate denier organisation, it smells like fake news it looks like fake news and many of the statements made are known to be incorrect. Fake News story. So we'll ignore the good Doctor, now ex-NOAA, and focus on the medium not the message. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Please define the "many statements known to be incorrect" They have not refuted the use of the unverified and unstable models, which are central to the argument. The models haven't been QA/QC cleared, indeed they haven't claimed that; merely skirted the issue. So it not merely an administrative thing, as they they are trying to claim. Would you fly in a plane built based on a model that hadn't passed QA/QC? Conspiracy theorist much. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

Please define the "many statements known to be incorrect"

You could check some of the links provided by others.


Quote:

Conspiracy theorist much. :

Yes that is exactly what the story is.

It is convenient that nobody has mentioned that the report has been verified several times since it was published.


Quote:

So we'll ignore the good Doctor, now ex-NOAA, and focus on the medium not the message.

Not really the message produced has been shown to be faulty but when the medium is suspect to start with it rather tells the story anyway.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

They have not refuted the use of the unverified and unstable models, which are central to the argument. The models haven't been QA/QC cleared, indeed they haven't claimed that; merely skirted the issue. So it not merely an administrative thing, as they they are trying to claim.

I notice you didn't address the central issue.

I have already quoted Snopes; here is factcheck

"Several studies have noted that “ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data” and that buoy data are “more accurate,” the researchers write. Since buoys have increased in use over time and ships have decreased in use, there is a “time-dependent bias” in the global ocean temperature record, they explained."

It begs the question why adjust the buoy data for a "cooling bias"?

Again, they don't query that the models used were not verified.

Again, the London School of Economics makes no claim about the models used. It does however write about an astrophysicist not being a climate scientist. Bob Ward is not a climate scientist either but feels he can comment on climate science.

Sorry - fake news - it has been exposed.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Sorry - fake news - it has been exposed.

Yep. The fake news  from Snopes etc that the use of dud models doesn't even rate a mention. Very peculiar. ;)

Bobby. wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:18am:

Thanks Lee, it's amazing how so many gullible people like Jovial have been conned.

Says the dupe conned by a snake oil salesman!  :D :D :D

How much did you spend on survival food, pathetic Booby?

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

You l\know Snopes is not the best source, don't you?

Yet you are quite happy to post material from JoNova and whatsupwiththat

You are a fraud lee

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 11:01am:

lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 1:00pm: You l\know Snopes is not the best source, don't you? Yet you are quite happy to post material from JoNova and whatsupwiththat You are a fraud lee

Yes. Watts compiles scientific papers from both sides. Jonova is similar.

They are aggregators of information from diverse sources. EG Nature magazine, Scientific American.

They even reviewed Zeke Hausfather's 2017 mentioned above.

Why do you have a problem with that?

At least, unlike SkS, they don't only follow the AGW mantra. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 12:39pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 11:01am: lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 1:00pm: You l\know Snopes is not the best source, don't you? Yet you are quite happy to post material from JoNova and whatsupwiththat You are a fraud lee Yes. Watts compiles scientific papers from both sides. Jonova is similar. They are aggregators of information from diverse sources. EG Nature magazine, Scientific American. They even reviewed Zeke Hausfather's 2017 mentioned above. Why do you have a problem with that? At least, unlike SkS, they don't only follow the AGW mantra. ;)

-> false dichotomy is what smashes the big "L"iberals everytime.

Malcolm Turnbull is shadenfaude itself and only lee can possibly think he will be remembered as more than a wart on the time-space continuum  ;D

Fake parents hate their kids.... end of!

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 1:22pm:

Malcolm Turnbull is shadenfaude itself and only lee can possibly think he will be remembered as more than a wart on the time-space continuum

Please quote the post, with references, where I said Turnbull would be remembered for anything? You really should try facts one day,

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 3:07pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 1:22pm: Malcolm Turnbull is shadenfaude itself and only lee can possibly think he will be remembered as more than a wart on the time-space continuum  Please quote the post, with references, where I said Turnbull would be remembered for anything? You really should try facts one day,

In environmental terms they are all the same prime minister: complete crap  ;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

In environmental terms they are all the same prime minister: complete crap

So you have nothing. Therefore the crap is yours and you are wearing it.

Yeah, JoNova is “scientific” ahahaha

One blog post she said oil could be found under ocean floor. What garbage. She quoted a paper by a geologist in support. I read that paper and it said NOTHING like what Jo said. I think the blog post was withdrawn—I guess the geologists who wrote the paper Jo cited got wind of that.

Wattsup is constantly found to be wrong.

They are aggregators, aggregators of denialist nonsense.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 21^st, 2017 at 8:05am:

Yeah, JoNova is “scientific” ahahaha One blog post she said oil could be found under ocean floor. What garbage. She quoted a paper by a geologist in support. I read that paper and it said NOTHING like what Jo said. I think the blog post was withdrawn—I guess the geologists who wrote the paper Jo cited got wind of that. Wattsup is constantly found to be wrong. They are aggregators, aggregators of denialist nonsense.

Of course you can provide citations?

Now how about saying something germane about the Tom Karl 2015 paper? ;)


You mean you can't find oil under the ocean floor? Gulf of Mexico etc?

Are you sure you are a geo?


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 20^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:

We need someone with a good grasp of the science. Not me, just a humble geologist I.

Like I keep pointing out...  liars and frauds...

lee wrote on Feb 21^st, 2017 at 10:07am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 21st, 2017 at 8:05am: Yeah, JoNova is “scientific” ahahaha One blog post she said oil could be found under ocean floor. What garbage. She quoted a paper by a geologist in support. I read that paper and it said NOTHING like what Jo said. I think the blog post was withdrawn—I guess the geologists who wrote the paper Jo cited got wind of that. Wattsup is constantly found to be wrong. They are aggregators, aggregators of denialist nonsense. Of course you can provide citations? Now how about saying something germane about the Tom Karl 2015 paper? ;) You mean you can't find oil under the ocean floor? Gulf of Mexico etc?

Ocean floor is not the same as continental shelf.

If you had an interest in science you might have looked it up.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 9:27pm:

Ocean floor is not the same as continental shelf.

Really? Perhaps you mean it is not part of the deep ocean floor?

"The ocean’s crust is a thin layer of volcanic rock called basalt. The ocean floor is divided into several different areas. The first is the continental shelf, the nearly flat, underwater extension of a continent. Continental shelves vary in width. They are usually wide along low-lying land, and narrow along mountainous coasts."

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ocean/

Or is NatGeo another denialist site? ;D ;D ;D ;D

"An oil exploration firm has found what is believed to be the largest undeveloped discovery on the UK Continental Shelf."

Why would there not be oil under continental shelves?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/27/oil-exploration-firm-largest-undeveloped-discovery-uk-continental/

Ocean floor is very different to continental shelf. Both are sea floor but ocean floor has a special meaning.

Quote:

Plate tectonics and the ocean floor The shape of the ocean floor, its bathymetry, is largely a result of a process called plate tectonics. The outer rocky layer of the Earth includes about a dozen large sections called tectonic plates that are arranged like a spherical jig-saw puzzle floating on top of the Earth's hot flowing mantle. Convection currents in the molten mantle cause the plates to slowly move about the Earth a few centimeters each year. Many ocean floor features are a result of the interactions that occur at the edges of these plates. The shifting plates may collide (converge), move away (diverge) or slide past (transform) each other. As plates converge, one plate may dive under the other causing earthquakes, forming volcanoes, or creating deep ocean trenches such as the Mariana Trench. Where plates are pulled away (diverge) from each other molten magma flows upward between the plates forming mid-ocean ridges, underwater volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, and new ocean floor crust. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, is an example of this type of plate boundary. Transform boundaries are formed when two plates slide past one another such as on mid-ocean ridges and often cause earthquakes due to zig-zag offsets.

http://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/ocean-floor-features

Oh. Plate tectonics. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nothing about continental shelves. ;)

That is because ocean floor is not the same as continental shelves.

"The relatively accessible continental shelf is the best understood part of the ocean floor. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf

You know about wiki, you use it.

"1. Identify major features on the seafloor:

a. Continental shelves and slopes"

http://geosci.sfsu.edu/courses/geol103/labs/seafloor/partI.html

“ocean floor” is being very loosely applied there.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 10:31pm:

“ocean floor” is being very loosely applied there.

It is very loosely applied whenever you use it. ;)

No, I use the term precisely: I don’t use it as a synonym for seafloor, for example. I do have qualifications in science, remember?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

No, I use the term precisely: I don’t use it as a synonym for seafloor, for example. I do have qualifications in science, remember?

So you keep telling us. But I can't remember what I don't know. I really don't know what qualifications you have. You tried to tell us how a greenhouse worked. With very imprecise wording. ;)

I loved the way you talked about one—I could hear the call for the tallest man in the regiment to open a pane in the atmospheric greenhouse to cool the earth  :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

I loved the way you talked about one—I could hear the call for the tallest man in the regiment to open a pane in the atmospheric greenhouse to cool the earth  :D

That must have been to let all that extra CO2 out. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, it was to cool the globe, greenhouses apparently work by convection at least according to you.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 10:18am: Thanks Lee, it's amazing how so many gullible people like Jovial have been conned. Says the dupe conned by a snake oil salesman!  :D :D :D How much did you spend on survival food, pathetic Bobby?

So says Jovial joke -
who thinks he's a climate scientist.

I have never said I am a climate scientist. I have said I have a BSc from Adelaide University.

Well the more you say it the less credibility Adelaide has.

So YOU deny the "PAUSE" but the IPCC and many scientists among whom you exclude yourself say it is a fact.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 10:55pm:

No, it was to cool the globe, greenhouses apparently work by convection at least according to you.

See you are wrong again.  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 7:25am:

I have never said I am a climate scientist. I have said I have a BSc from Adelaide University.

Which counts for zero -

just stick to publishing evidence as I do.

So, when are you going to publish some evidence, Booby?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 7:25am:

I have said I have a BSc from Adelaide University.

Do they acknowledge you?

lee wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 11:39am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 31st, 2017 at 7:25am: I have said I have a BSc from Adelaide University. Do they acknowledge you?

I doubt it... he thinks clouds stop at fencelines. :D