Researchers Lambast Daily Mail’s Climate Change Article

By Nathaniel Scharping | February 7, 2017 3:09 pm
shutterstock_122042254

(Credit: lexaarts/Shutterstock)

A recent article published in the Daily Mail critical of climate science has drawn sharp criticism from multiple climate researchers.

The controversy concerns a paper, published in 2015 by a team of NOAA researchers led by Thomas Karl, that revealed a purported “pause” in global warming was nothing more than an artifact of incomplete data. Now, the Daily Mail has published an article based on an exclusive interview with former NOAA employee John Bates alleging that the Karl paper misinterpreted data to overstate the scope of climate change.

The article was quickly promoted by The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, led by Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

In brief, Bates, who was not involved with the research he discusses, questions the legitimacy of datasets used by Karl et al. He contends that they improperly combined readings from multiple sources, alleges that their software was plagued by bugs and argues that they failed to archive their data properly. The Daily Mail article uses these critiques to paint a picture of a far-reaching cover-up among climate scientists.

Sharp Criticism

The response was swift: Several climate researchers, including former NOAA scientists, wrote blog posts pointing out the many flaws in Bates’ argument. Chief among them is the fact that the datasets, along with a record of bug fixes and their impact is publicly available. In addition, multiple papers have drawn the same conclusions as Karl et. al using the same dataset, and another recent paper backs up the reliability of the NOAA’s models. All of the research points to a mostly uninterrupted trend of warming throughout the 20th and into the 21st century.

noaa_update

One of Bates’ main issues is that estimates of global warming are based on both land and ocean temperature data. Our datasets for land data are newer, and Bates argues that they shouldn’t be trusted. However, as Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst and environmental economist, points out, the trend looks the same whether data was collected in the ocean or on land. University of Bonn Meteorological Institute researcher Victor Venema adds that the Daily Mail article seems to ignore the long-term trend, which shows a pattern of visible warming.

New Data Widely Supported

The most important part of the Karl paper was the realization that ocean temperature data obtained from buoys and ships — the two main sources — differs slightly because ships’ engines will warm the water slightly. This resulted in readings that were slightly higher than they should have been. Their new dataset, which accounts for this difference, erased evidence of a pause in global warming.

Bates believes that the new analysis improperly combined data from buoys and ships, as well as readings from land-based observatories to overstate temperature increases. However, says Venema, the new data using more input from buoy readings and a better compilation of data from different sources actually lowers estimates of temperature increases. In any case, the long-term trend is on an upward trajectory, no matter the dataset.

“The update of NOAA’s land data will probably remove a precious conspiracy of the mitigation skeptical movement,” Venema wrote.

Another point of contention in the Daily Mail article is that NOAA, in updating its datasets, is admitting wrongdoing. In fact, NOAA scientists are constantly updating their data and algorithms as Maynooth University climatologist Peter Thorne points out.

“All datasets I have ever worked upon have undergone version increments. Measuring in the environment is a tough proposition,” Thorne writes. Furthermore, the datasets and programs used by Karl et. al were not “highly experimental” as the Daily Mail claims — they were based on previous iterations of the program and were independently peer-reviewed.

“I can only say that the accusations in the piece do not square one iota with the robust integrity I see in the work and discussions that I have been involved in with them for over a decade,” Thorne concluded.

Several graphs are presented in the article as evidence of data manipulation. One purports to show data from both the Karl study and from “verified” research showing lower temperatures. In fact, the two datasets were calibrated to different baseline temperatures — accounting for the difference makes them nearly identical.

MoS2 Template Master

A graph from the daily Mail article purporting to show that the NOAA data is flawed. In fact, the two datasets are calibrated using different baseline temperatures, which accounts for nearly all of the difference seen.

Ultimately, the controversy may amount to nothing more than a misrepresentation of scientific discourse.

Bates’ issues with the research come down to a critique of how Karl et. al and others handled and stored data, not the ultimate veracity of the data itself. During his time at NOAA, Bates worked chiefly with satellite data unrelated to the databases used by Karl and his team, an area of research that uses different protocols for determining when to publish data.

He may not have personally agreed with their decision to publish the data; however, those results have been peer-reviewed and supported by teams of independent researchers. In addition, their methodology for calculating and temperatures has become standard for NOAA researchers, says Popular Science.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment, top posts
MORE ABOUT: climate change
ADVERTISEMENT
  • -e^(i*pi)

    Global warming deniers claim the data is all made up, and that there is a vast, vast conspiracy of researchers (who can be herded as easily as cats) conspiring to invent global warming out of thin air. But if that was the case they would have invented the “correct” data first, and never have needed to go back and make corrections later.

    The fact that data is reviewed and corrected when new information becomes available proves that the deniers and their claims of a vast conspiracy are without merit.

    All the hot air and noise from the conspiracy nuts in the global warming nut house is about deflecting attention from the real conspiracy — that of the fossil fuel industries who stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars by having society continue pay the future cost of using their product.

    • John C

      No… simmer down. Many of us are just skeptical of the catastrophic hyperbole and Marxist conspiracy theories pushed forward under the sheep’s clothing of “Science!”

      • Victor Venema

        Why don’t these people start their own movement or at least complain when their movement makes and spreads this kind of horrible Daily Mail stuff? Note to all, John did not complain about the Daily Mail, he complained about e^(i*pi).

        • CB

          “John did not complain about the Daily Mail”

          He didn’t complain, he just called them liars…

          “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data”

          -John Bates

          (E&E News, “‘Whistleblower’ says protocol was breached but no data fraud”, Scott Waldman, Tuesday, February 7, 2017)

          • Victor Venema

            I was talking about “John C”, the friendly comment writer in this forum, not “John Bates” the friendly NOAA retire.

          • CB

            “I was talking about “John C”, the friendly comment writer in this forum”

            Ah, sorry.

            He may well be friendly, but he also seems to be mentally ill.

            That makes the job of the fossil fuel industry much simpler, I suppose. I’m still on the fence as to whether Mr. Bates is part of their misinformation campaign… I feel like he should have known the Daily Mail hosts Climate Denier propaganda…

            “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

            (Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)”)

      • -e^(i*pi)

        Well, see, as soon as you threw in the phrase “Marxist conspiracy” you pretty much exposed your self as the one who is actually doing the stuff you describe.

    • TheDudeofVoo

      ❝Global warming deniers claim the data is all made up…❞

      Do you realize your starting off with a straw-man argument?

    • Laird Wilcox

      One of the most certain ways to judge whether a scientific debate is honest, competent and follows accepted protocols for discussion and airing of differences of opinion regarding the integrity of research, differences in interpreting data and the causality of apparent trends is the nature and decorum of the rhetoric in the arguments themselves.

      In the above example we learn that people who have issues with certain points of view are “deniers,” a term that has become an epithet used to stigmatize, marginalize and even demonize those who take issue with more popular points of view.

      We learn that critics and skeptics are claiming that data is “all made up,” that their questions are all “hiot air and noise,” they are treated as a unitary force working in concert with one another, that they are “conspiracy theorist nuts”, that they are in league with the fossil fuel industry and that they somehow have a stake in “billions of dollars.”

      What is postulated in the previous letter — largely an exercize in name-calling — could be said to rise to the level of a “conspiracy theory” in itself, although I think the term is used irresponsibly in most cases. Any consideration that the alleged “deniers” possess any humanity and that their concerns may be legitimate and worthy of consideration is rejected out of hand, as if to dehumanize them in a manner of speaking.

      I don’t take an issue in the global warming issue here — only in the way the debate is being conducted. Regarding this I would suggest that readers take a look at my collection of quotations entitled “Rationality, Skepticism & Logic” available as a free PDF download at various places on the web. Search for the title and my name together to locate it.

      Regarding the issue of “conspiracy theories,” I would recommend the book “American Conspiracy Theories,” a sober and honest analysis of that aspect of the claims made by those trying to suppress dissent. Written by Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent — two American academics — the book has been well-received.

      • -e^(i*pi)

        Interesting comments, Laird. But you completely ignored what I said.

        It is a fact that a large group of people deny that global warming is happening. Donald Trump is one of those people — he thinks that global warming is a “hoax” invented by China.

        Saying that it’s name calling to call these folks what they are is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

        Furthermore, there are specific characteristics that should be apparent if guys like Donald are correct — and one of the characteristics is that the fake data would be perfectly faked — with no need for revisions.

        Yet we find revisions in the data — revisions that are perfectly inconsistent with the “hoax” claims of the global warming deniers and perfectly consistent with the nature of scientific evidence, where revisions are a common occurrence.

        That’s the issue that I’m addressing in my comments. You would do well to address that issue, and leave aside the fake/veiled accusations of name calling which you so skillfully committed, yourself, while writing between the lines.

        • Laird Wilcox

          -e^(i*pi)
          Laird’s Reply….

          Interesting comments, Laird. But you completely ignored what I said.

          Answer: No, I paid attention to it although I may have partially ignored parts that I felt weren’t relevant. “Completely” is an overstatement. However, as is often the case with people, what you thought you said may not have been when I thought you said and it seems to me that the same may be true with respect to your view of what I said. Misunderstandings of this nature are likely to occur in adversarial communications. I apologize for my part.

          It is a fact that a large group of people deny that global warming is happening. Donald Trump is one of those people — he thinks that global warming is a “hoax” invented by China.

          Answer: The majority of skeptics and critics realize that warming (and cooling) occurs and has for millions of years, sometimes rapidly and sometimes alternating rather quickly as it has for the last 100,000 years or so. What AGW advocates call a serious threat caused by the rapacious oil industry may merely be another of those periodic cycles, according to many skeptics and critics. Metaphors are very confusing in this whole debate. What some people mean in casual and sloppy usage can become offensive when heard by people who are interpreting them more precisely. As for Donald Trump, I suspect it was another one of his offhand comments and not a firm conviction that he seriously believes, but who knows.

          Saying that it’s name calling to call these folks what they are is an example of the pot calling th e kettle black.

          Answer: Some incidental name-calling is understandable but when one’s argument is laced with pejorative slurs and name-calling it’s another matter. In this case it becomes an emotive onslaught relatively devoid of rational argument. If may feel good to communicate in these terms but it’s really a form of aggression.

          Furthermore, there are specific characteristics that should be apparent if guys like Donald are correct — and one of the characteristics is that the fake data would be perfectly faked — with no need for revisions.

          Answer: “Perfectly faked? Everyone makes mistakes, whether they are faking something or not, This whole area is full of mistakes, otherwise revisions wouldn’t be necessary. A few paragraphs back you spelled “the” as “t he.” This was an unintended typo, of course. Donald was venting an unfounded opinion — commonplace in this controversy.

          Yet we find revisions in the data — revisions that are perfectly inconsistent with the “hoax” claims of the global warming deniers and perfectly consistent with the nature of scientific evidence, where revisions are a common occurrence.

          Answer: It’s always good when revisions and corrections occur when necessary, regardless of who benefits. “Hoax” is a pejorative word and skeptics and critics should be far more careful about using it, just like AGW advocates should refrain from using “denier” for the same reason. It’s an attempt to use a blanket term to cover what are really a diverse group of people, as in stereotyping,

          That’s the issue that I’m addressing in my comments. You would do well to address that issue, and leave aside the fake/veiled accusations of name calling which you so skillfully committed, yourself, while writing between the lines.

          Answer: It’s true that complaining about name-calling is in itself – by broad and fanciful extension — a kind of “name-calling.”

          • -e^(i*pi)

            Laird, I’ve tried twice, now, to reply to your comments. For some reason my replies keep getting deleted as “spam.” Sorry to have to end the conversation, but I don’t have time to tangle with the censors.

          • Laird Wilcox

            I have no idea what’s going on. I don’t like censorship in any form. I appreciate your interest and perhaps we’ll meet again. Wish we could just talk over coffee.

  • joulesbeef

    its a crime against humanity that the daily mail and the rabid right is doing. Unfortunately its so hard to actually write a law, to punish these criminals with. but make no mistake, they are criminals that rise to the level of nazis.

    • John C

      Is there a big box store someplace where far left nuts get their Nazi metaphors wholesale?

      • Erik Bosma

        The Nazi events actually happened so it is absolutely fair to compare certain contemporary events with them. That’s why they tell us to learn history or we won’t be ready for when it repeats itself.

        • John C

          Every…thing…liberals…don’t like is the Second Coming of Hitler.

          • Gerald Wonnacott

            Both sides…

        • Laird Wilcox

          What you would have to do is describe and explain precisely what the basis for the comparison is, whether it makes any kind of logical sense at all and why it is relevant to the issue at hand.

          Most of these “comparisons” are false similes that are pathetic attempts to call names in an attempt to injure, stigmatize and demonize another point of view and its advocates. An attempt to marginalize an opponent with this kind of specious tactic actually reveals much more about the assailant and how far they will go to respond to something they prefer not to confront on a rational level.

          The belief that you neutralize a fact, viewpoint or troublesome issue by hurling bad names and curses against it is a primitive notion and forms the basis for irrational magical thinking, The magical thinking revealed in this practice may also be present in the ideas and opinions you are defending. Name-calling and false similes is a disreputable rhetorical tactic and nothing more.

          • Erik Bosma

            I’m not picking any sides. I try not to because I like a peaceful life. However, there are rules that apply to all whether you like them or not. Therefore I neither condone or condemn how someone attempts to make a point as long as they don’t use “false news” as a reference. And don’t try to brand me with one or more of your labels because it may suit your world view of dualism. As I said, I try not to pick sides because it is rare to see someone successfully attempting to tango by themselves although many do.

          • Laird Wilcox

            I don’t think I was specifically referring to you but I can see how it kind of looks that way. My apologies if you took it that way. I respect your point of view and appreciate your comment.

        • OWilson

          Is it fair to point out that the U.S. has killed well over 50 million “undesirable” babies since Roe Vs Wade?

          I think the total count for the Nazis was around 11 million!

          • Erik Bosma

            No, my friend, you misunderstand. One is allowed to use real and not exaggerated events as comparisons if one feels they can be compared. That was my point. Anyone may disagree with the magnitude of the comparison as long as the don’t exaggerate either. That’s what Trump does. He uses so much hyperbole an objective reader can become lost unless he has a strong handle on logic and reason.

          • OWilson

            Interesting rationale :)

            Thanks for instructing us on the rules :)

        • Mike Richardson

          Check out his new avatar. I hope that’s an attempt at irony.

    • RossXtn

      Nothing compares to what the Nazis did. And every time I read someone comparing anyone to Nazis, I know they’re liars trying to hide something.

      • 7eggert

        When I see someone who doesn’t like being compared to Nazis, I usually see someone who compares unfavorably.

        • Laird Wilcox

          So if anyone objects to being libeled, slimed and called hateful names they are admitting that they deserve the abuse? Think about what you are saying here. If I called you a pervert, Communist and traitor and you objected it would lend credence to the claim? I hope everyone is paying attention to your comment and this reply to it.

          • 7eggert

            No. When you need to say “when the Nazis did the same thing, it was wrong, but you may not compare me! I don’t wear the label so I’m right!”, you aren’t.

          • Laird Wilcox

            Well, I apparently misunderstood your comment. It sounded like a fallacy I often encounter and I jumped to that conclusion. It was a long night. My apology.

          • 7eggert

            I think I was ambiguous in that context.

      • Laird Wilcox

        The crimes of Marxist-Leninist regimes around the world, including during World War and afterwards, are much greater than those committed by the Nazis during their 13-year reign, which were also terrible. You are correct, however, about people who compare anything or anyone they don’t like to the Nazis. They are pathological name-callers seeking to tar and slime any they disagree with hate-words and magical incantations rather than confront the issues..

    • OWilson

      Free speech is a “crime against humanity”?

      An article in a widely circulated newspaper?

      Better strap on your incendiary devices and get out there and do something about it.

      Let’s hope you timing is off :)

    • Laird Wilcox

      A “crime against humanity” to contest someone else’s opinions and beliefs about the causes of present-day climate change? It is the AGWs intolerance of dissent and criticism that is a “crime against humanity,” if there is one (I actually think this statement has no place in the debate, however).

      When a cause or crusade is bent upon crushing and silencing dissenters and critics it is no longer entitled to claim having anything to do with science; is has made the dangerous transition to being a cult that cannot allow any kind of opposition or exposure.

  • Yvonne Thompson

    you know what it looks like to me? someone shifted the graph down a bit and called it good.

  • Yvonne Thompson

    so yeah, no mater the chart, the global warming is there.. get over it.

    • John C

      not the catastrophic predictions we’re bombarded with, get over that too.

      • Yvonne Thompson

        um, no, exactly the catastrophic predictions we were bombarded with,minus efforts that were instated already to counter them. or was that not the third, “storm of the century” the last time a hurricane made landfall in the united states?? the fact is this is a real thing. to deny it is to deny life itself. the predictions were extended droughts, and storms, when they did show up being much more severe. that’s exactly what happened.

    • Both sides are responsible

      Sure …. and warmer temperatures increase the quantity of arable land that can be put into production. Increased CO2 levels mean bigger, stronger, healthier plants with larger yields. Those two simple things raise the quality of life and improves the standard of living throughout the 3rd world.

      Man(kind) is the most adaptable animal to ever exist on this planet. If the problem really is increasing temperatures that allow grapes to b grown in Wales. Then plentiful, cheap, reliable electric generation and air conditioning is the solution

      Get over it ….. You’ve been bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars and taught nothing but lies

      • Yvonne Thompson

        nice try, but no… had you actually payed attention to the charts and the predictions, you would know that the whole thing is playing out exactly like the predictions.. as far as arable land, that’s bulshit, because you need a steady source of water, and the way the storm fronts have been, they are more severe and less frequent. it’s only within the last month or so that the droughts in major areas of farming have eased up, but they eased up through storms so severe that they have damaged infrastructure. it isn’t just about one species, but the entire biosphere.. cheap electrical air conditioning stopped working when outside conditions become too hot for the power lines, ore there are too many people hiding inside with the AC on.., and that’s where we have been for the last six summers, with rolling brown/black outs as the aging network tries to keep up.. increased Co2 levels do not mean stronger plANTS, THEY MIGHT MEAN A FASTER GROWTH PATTERN, BUT THAT ACTUALLY WEAKENS THE PLANTS because the rest of the plant’s growth cycle is sped up and they eventually die faster as well, leaving a bigger clusterfuck that starts fires, and has started fires… and i didn’t even touch on the acid rain, where the trees and such are literally eaten away by the acid that was usually not acid, that was falling from the clouds…

  • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

    The Trumpster and his team could learn a thing or two about “alternate facts” from the so-called “climate skeptic” crowd.

    True manipulation of data have been these folks bread and butter for decades.

    The desire to sow confusion and doubt – to basically throw as much $hit on the wall as possible and see what sticks, is their MO.

    Kellyanne “Bowling Green” Conway, and Sean “Melissa McCarthy Does Me Better Than Me” Spicer should take as many notes as possible

    • John C

      Give it a rest already.

    • Laird Wilcox

      The term “alternative facts” is a legal term often used at trial where the plaintiff offers one version of the facts and the defendant offers an alternative version. Kellyanne Conway is a lawyer, a law school graduate, and has tried cases. This was the sense she was using the term in. It’s perfectly legitimate in legal argument and this is how she intended it.

  • John C

    Well, I guess the science isn’t settled after all.

    It will be interesting to see how this story plays out over the next year or so as all the facts on both sides come out. I’m glad Congress will highlight data that the Obama crowd did their best to stifle.

    Let’s have a full hearing on this so we can finally evaluate both sides of the issue, not just the side left wing activists want us to see.

    • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

      The charge that adjustments to surface temperature data represent scientific malfeasance has been made more times than can be counted.

      There has never been a single instance – not one – of anyone proving that the adjustments are scientifically incorrect.

      Berkeley Earth was an independently funded group of scientists that formed to look at the surface temperature data. Guess what they found – the same answer as NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT: And they got this same answer by using different methods than these groups.

      It is worth noting what they have to say on the subject (emphasis mine):

      Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

      Skeptics are sorely lacking in both assuming good faith and in understanding exactly what adjustment do.

      And the Karl paper has also been supported by independent analysis. (Search: Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records)

      This type of independent analysis is how science works. And it can’t be done if data is withheld – which it isn’t. Thus, so as far “stifling” data and finally having the chance to “evaluate both sides of the issue”, let me point you to your own advice to me.

      The bottom line is that the climate science community has independent groups that constantly check the veracity of temperature adjustments.

      But acknowledging that fact is something skeptics can’t bring themselves to do because it doesn’t fit their narrative of underhanded scientists.

      • John C

        We need a full, open debate on this complex scientific issue. For the past 8 years we have just had name calling and every attempt to shut down any debate by the left. Actually, it’s been going on since the late 1980’s when Gore proclaimed the debate was over.

        Now that the GOP is in charge we will get to hear the other side, which the Obama Admin. and their friends did their best to squelch. May the best Science win.

        • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

          The science in this field is debated daily. Lack of a “full, open debate” is not an issue.

          The problem for skeptics is this:

          Debate in science is a debate with a hypothesis, data and analysis in hand. In order to show that the surface temperature data sets are incorrect, skeptics must:

          Present a hypothesis as to why the raw data need not be adjusted at all (this, by the way, is impossible once one looks at what bias’ exist in the data), or why a different type of adjustment needs to be applied (this entails showing that the current adjustments are scientifically flawed).

          The raw data is available to anyone who wants to pursue this line of research. The end result from those that have tried is to find that current adjustments are supported scientifically.

          And as far as the other side being heard, it has no problem in this respect. One example: whenever Congress holds any type of hearing on climate change, there are certain skeptic scientists who ALWAYS get invited to testify.

          Not having the other side have its say in the halls of Congress is not an issue.

          • John C

            No, debate is stifled by pseudo religious fanatics who equate rational, scientifically educated and intellectually justified sceptics with morally degenerate anti-semetic Holocaust deniers.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Thanks to Discover Magazine, you and I can have a debate right here.

            Do you want to continue talking about the surface temperature record and adjustments made to it?

            Or do you want to move onto a different subject?

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • OWilson

            A year or so ago, when NOAA first did the second, “hide the decline” “trick” to nullify the IPCC’s “Settled Science” hiatus, the headllne trumpeted here at Discovery, and around the world, was, “No Hiatus, after all, says NOAA. AGW Models proven correct!”

            Few actually read the Report and the methodology behind it.

            I did, and drilling down I found they had simply downgraded one set of data for another.

            Here’s what they did!

            There have been thousands of scientific buoys launched in the Argo Buoy Program. They give accurate temperatures at various ocean levels.

            Then there are ancient steamship records of water intake temperatures going back to the 19th Century from old shipping of dubious registration.

            These steamship records were consistently higher than the Argo Buoy data.

            So, they adjusted the Argo Buoy temperatures UPWARDS to match the old steamship records!!

            Yes they did, and they described how they did it.

            But now as time passes, NOAA’s public information flow has cynically been changed to say only that the discrepency between the Argo Buoys and the steamship records was “ADJUSTED”, and doesn’t say which way.

            Not only did they “hide the Hiatus” but they hid the suspect methodology available on their web sites.

            Thankfully someone has picked up on this outrageous piece of self serving non science again, and we should be hearing a lot more about this in the coming months.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            …do you mean they just used the steamship data, or, that they used the Argo data, but adjusted?
            I know, you actually said, “So, they adjusted the Argo Buoy temperatures UPWARDS to match the old steamship records!!”…but, I’m so flabbergasted, I need to check. See, the Argo data has incredible density, while the ‘steamship’ data is along some shipping lines, and sparse, everywhere else. So, adjusting the Argo data gives a FALSE density to the ship-board temperatures.

          • OWilson

            This issue is briefly raised in the article above, but NOAA have since removed the reference to adjusting the Argo Buoy data “upwards” from their web site, which is why it is frustrating to keep up with their scientific sleights of hand.

            The casual observer could never follow the whole way through this methodology labyrinth, and are willing to accept some “consensus”.

            Our erstwhile AGW skeptic, Judith Curry, did comment on the issue though:

            “The treatment of the buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data. They were adjusted upwards 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and they were never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose for the buoys. Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data”.

        • 7eggert

          Do you really think that Shell, BP, the coal mining companies, car makers etc combined could be easily silenced? If there is proof, they can publish it, and if someone silences them, we are sure to notice.

      • TheDudeofVoo

        The evidence is right there.

        ”…researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement.”

        ”A 410-station subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network (version 2.5) stations is identified that experienced no changes in time of observation or station moves during the 1979-2008 period. These stations are classified based on proximity to artificial surfaces, buildings, and other such objects with unnatural thermal mass using guidelines established by Leroy (2010). The relatively few stations in the classes with minimal artificial impact are found to have raw temperature trends that are collectively about 2/3 as large as stations in the classes with greater expected artificial impact. The trend differences are largest for minimum temperatures and are statistically significant even at the regional scale and across different types of instrumentation and degrees of urbanization. The homogeneity adjustments applied by the National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center) greatly reduce those differences, but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact.”

        Watts, Anthony 2015. “Comparison of Temperature Trends Using an Unperturbed Subset of The US Historical Climatology Network.” 2015 AGU Fall Meeting.

        • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

          For a critique of this poster, Google: Variable Variability Anthony Watts at AGU2015: Comparison of Temperature Trends Using an Unperturbed Subset of The U.S. Historical Climatology Network

          We are now over a year after this poster was presented. Have Watts et al. ever published this work? Have they even submitted it for review? I can’t find that they have.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Doesn’t slight the information presented. You can access the data and see for yourself; we all can.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            I wouldn’t say it slights the data either. What I see is that questions are raised (six key points) concerning the method and the results obtained. And in the comments section there is discussion of these points with one of Watt’s co-authors Evan Jones, but no resolution to them.

            If Watt’s and Jones have not published this paper yet, then I strongly suspect they are still getting their ducks in order. And if that is the case, then who knows if the results presented at AGU2015 are still supported?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            We all uphold published work above unpublished, but data you can get, and verify yourself, is pretty much capable of standing on its own. I don’t need a published paper to know that there are craters on the moon … I can use a telescope and see them. Watts and Jones used publicly available data.

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    Klimate Kaos causes political falsification, thus proving itself. First, we pull a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award from Al Gore’s grasping claws. Second, we confiscate all Al Gore’s carbon credit arbitrage profits. Third, we bury Al Gore up to his neck in wet sand at low tide in Laguna Beach, open a couple of cool ones, and be patient – with a web cam.

    Youtube v=uGEzFbRl-g8 0.58ff
    President Trump, our transcendent President.

    • Albert Tousson

      Uncle Al, you are wickedly hilarious :). But we should at least provide Al Gore with a breathing tube. Do we really want a dead, rotting body on Laguna Beach?

  • climatologist

    No one denies the climate change – always has, always will. Only we can explain it without CO2. With $1.5 trillion invested in the hoax, the scientists riding the gravy train are worried their train will be derailed. We have all the old data and every change made in the last three decades have been made to create warming where it doesn’t exist. They play whack a mole with previous warm periods to make it seem like this is unprecedented. Why?
    Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of Washington State saw the Paris accord coming many years ago: “The future is to be (One) World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance”

    IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010 admitted
    “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…”

    UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres said “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system (destroy capitalism).”

    This is something Eisenhower warned about in his Farewell address:
    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

    • Victor Venema

      An anonymous account claiming to be a climatologist talking only politics. Where are your publication? On political science.

      • climatologist

        Numerous publications peer reviewed based on 45 years experience. Worked at 5 corporation developing statistical forecasting models. Typical ad hominem response shows me you are the political one.

        • CB

          “Numerous publications peer reviewed based on 45 years experience.”

          That’s it!?

          Awwwww…

          Spin faster.

          You aren’t earning your keep…

          “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

          (NASA, “Climate change: How do we know?”)

          • climatologist

            No spin here. the spin has been going on for decades by the globalists. Former NOAA Administrator Dr. Lubchenko, when she was president of AAAS in 1999, urged “Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract … a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.” And the Club of Rome wrote “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming…would fit the bill…..It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.“

            UN IPCC official and Lead Author Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010. “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.”
            UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres said “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system (destroy capitalism).”

            EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 23, 2014: “The great thing about this [EPA Power Plan] proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control

          • cunudiun

            “No spin here.” I agree there are more accurate terms than “spin”. For example, “bullsh¡t” might provide the appropriate precision.

          • Both sides are responsible

            OK CB I’m using physics so I will type slow. first we are talking about infinitesimal quantities when compared to the atmosphere as a whole. The largest impactful component of GHG’s is water vapor ….. but that has been completely disregarded other than some rather bizarre statistical modeling formula’s for feedback loop amplification caused by CO2. Since the surface of this planet is 70% water and temperatures are allegedly rising (allegedly because the sky is falling warmest years on record folks making the claim 1) use “adjusted data” not observational data and 2) the claimed temperature increases are inside the margin of error for the calculations. That makes “warmest year on record” a statistically suspect statement.

            CO2 constitutes 0.04% of planetary atmosphere. There are several reputable scientific journals that use an even smaller number, but I will accept 0.04% …. which means if asked to show atmospheric CO2 concentration rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent the answer is zero. CO2 also happens to be the weakest of the GHG trace gases. Methane is 17 times more absorbent of solar radiation than CO2 and that is the source of the heat that is warming the planet.

            Solar radiation is delivered to the troposphere as light, which is a wave, which modulates by frequency. The chemical composition of Methane is reactive to light over a wide range of band width making it a more impactful gas than CO2. CO2 is reactive within an extremely narrow range of bandwidth. So narrow in fact that rising CO2 levels become moot once the bandwidth of the wave is saturated. It is the solar radiation reaction that generates the heat. More CO2 does not increase the amount of light hitting the planet. For example purposes it can be considered a fixed quantity …. in reality it is a variable because our planets orbital rotation is not a constant, nor is the planets rotational oscillation. These variations are not accounted for in the climate statistical models (because solar activity is also extremely variable due to mass coronal ejections which aren’t modeled either)

            Think of CO2 as a curtain hung over a window and the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are curtains we hang behind the first curtain, The first curtain doesn’t capture all of the light hitting the first curtain and the second curtain is capturing the light not captured by the first. The second curtain makes the room darker but there is still some light that can be captured by a 3rd curtain. I’ll concede that the 3rd curtain allows for residual light to enter the room so we hang a 4th curtain which captures 100% of the light. Once you hit that point hanging a 5th, 6th, 7th, hell make it an infinite number of curtains. It doesn’t matter how many curtains or how much CO2 gets added because there isn’t any heat source to capture. The bandwidth range that CO2 reacts to is extremely narrow and once 100% is reached you can add an infinite amount of CO2 and you won’t change anything

            The planet has just exceeded a CO2 concentration of 400ppm and th planet is greening. Production agriculture (grown inside of a greenhouse) routinely introduce CO2 to 1200ppm because it makes plants stronger, grow larger, and mature faster. The maximum allowable CO2 concentration limit on a SSBN is 8,000ppm. This illustrates that CO2 is not a pollutant hazardous to human life.

            There is also the symbiotic relationship on this planet between plant and animal life. Proportionally, an exhaled breath exceeds the target level for CO2 emissions. All plants uptake CO2 and emit O2 and younger plants consume larger quantities of CO2 than mature plants. This is because young plants must sustain a much faster growth rate than mature plants. Therefore, improved forest and resource management practices would have a measurable positive impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Returning timber harvests to the 1970s levels not only results in significantly increased plant transpiration; it will also significantly reduce the levels of CO2 and carbon particulate missions due to wildland fire. Over the last ten years these fires have released more GHGs in the USA than all coal fueled thermal electricity generation.

            Why is that meaningful? The principle energy resource of 3rd world countries is the combustion of wood and the Paris accord keeps it that way. The third world encompasses a majority of global land mass. Factor that against horseshit environmental preservation policies and global generation of cheap reliable electric energy becomes the solution not the problem.

            The reality is Climate Change hysteria is the vehicle designed by Maurice Strong to destroy national sovereignty, collapse capitalism, and install global governance under the auspices of the United Nations. While Maurice was alive he didn’t hide these facts or his endgame … Google it.

            The question then becomes what do we do to the seditious traitors that have been pushing this agenda? I’m thinking staked to ant hills and covered in honey for the low level participants and something truly ghastly for those above.

    • Erik Bosma

      Hey, if that’s what it takes to wrest the majority of the world’s resources away from the psychopaths that think they own it now. Most of them inherited it anyways from their psychopathological ancestors who killed and stole for it because they were the power back then. Whole civilizations were marked with the ‘savage’ brush by their religious leaders and promptly disappeared. And the profits they make on the backs of the many who were ‘allowed to live’!! Why would anyone need so much money as a salary to live on? Depending on your geo-political location anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 is more than enough. I hope one day that the descendants of the African slaves sue for their share of the USA since they built most of it.

      • Both sides are responsible

        But the game plan is not to wrest the natural resources from the slime covered global elite …… all resources are to be consolidated under their control. Think feudalism in the dark ages. The elites get private armis, castle walls and modern technology. The rest of us get global equality in the form of pestilance and squaller

    • Albert Tousson

      Climatologist, your statement is insightful and reveals the “big picture” Good job!

    • Gerald Wonnacott

      Good Grief, the power of money… Scientists or global industry. What a hack!

  • OWilson

    If the children are taught by their elders, that the varied and changeable climate they see outside their window, is not natural, but is threatening to exterminate them, they will grow up in fear.

    If they are taught that fossil fuels, Industry and Capitalism is responsible for this extermination and is killing their planet, they will naturally rail against both.

    If a political movement like the Hard Left, or the Globalists can be seen to provide the solutions that can mitigate “climate change” and “save” mankind from it’s sins, it can be as powerful as any religion.

    Even if their teachers, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Leonardo di Caprio, Lady Ga Ga, Hennz-Kerry and the rest, indulge in their own obscene desires for palaces, mansions, jet aircraft, yachts, limousines and their other fossil fuleled toys, like the Pope who lives in his own palace surrounded by thousands of servants, they get a special dispensation from the new religion, and are not defrocked.

    They are then free to fill their own coffers to overflowing, and can issue directives to all countries, control the world’s wealth, and burn heretics at the stake of public shaming with words like denier, heretic, blasphemer, and much worse.

    For example, in this small sample of posters here, we have true believers hurling out accusations like, “crimes against humanity”, “criminals” “Nazi”, as well as the usual ad hominems against their duly elected political foes.

    And all this over a simple disagreement of whether a scientifically statistically insignificant 0.40 degree anomaly over the 38 year NOAA satellite record is beneficial or not, and whether or not the U.N. is the best institution to apply a “solution”, and if that tiny anomaly is a problem, we are encouraged to “believe”, of catastrophic proportions.

    Yes folks, there’s definitely more going on here, than science! :)

    • Albert Tousson

      OWilson, good points and made with a poetic flair.

      • OWilson

        Thank you!

        It distresses me to see science, the light of the world, co-opted by ether religion or politics!

  • Steve Goddard

    John Bates was one of two principal scientists at NCDC, not a “former employee” How can anyone take this article seriously after that blatant error in the second paragraph?

    • CB

      “How can anyone take this article seriously after that blatant error in the second paragraph?”

      lol!

      You’re a prostitute, Tony.

      How can anyone take you seriously?

      “Steven Goddard [Tony Heller] is one of several climate change skeptics cc’d on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change… Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.”

      (Desmog Dossiers, “Steven Goddard”)

      • TeaPartyGeezer

        That’s it!?

        Awwwww…

        Spin faster.

        You aren’t earning your keep…

        But, no one expects any more from you, cuz you’re …

        Still crazy after all these years.

  • Mike Richardson

    I keep hearing how climate science has been politicized, and it has–by politicians and ideologues who ignore, or in many cases, distort the actual data to promote their own views. The situation described in this article is hardly an anomaly, but it provides an excellent example of attacking the motives or timing of researchers, when in fact the research stands up to scrutiny and peer review. Once again, the data supports the ever growing body of evidence that the average global temperature is rising, primarily as a result of human activity. Claiming that the science isn’t settled, or that those who accept the objective evidence and the need to change our behavior are part of a Marxist conspiracy, does not change reality. It just makes us question the sanity of those who will go to such great pains to maintain their bubble of denial, or even drag others in with them. This is after all, a science blog.

    • Laird Wilcox

      Science is never completely settled, and it shouldn’t be regardless of the issue. This is true with issues that I am in accordance with as well as those I question. It is in the nature of real science that new evidence, re-evaluated evidence, new analysis of claims, evidence of bias or any number of things can justify re-examining earlier findings.

      A powerful clue to the reliability of the claimed rock-solid consensus and the character of those who make that claim is how they treat critics and skeptics. If they want to exclude them, harm them, stigmatize and marginalize them with epithets like “denialist” and so on, something is seriously amiss. Real scientists don’t do this except in the most egregious circumstances and even then they do so in a responsible and reasonable manner. True believers in settled doctrine who punish skeptics and critics are not to be admired but rather feared. Fanaticism and intolerance have no place in honest scientific inquiry.

      • OWilson

        Well said.

        The dogma and fanaticism we resist is the idea that the very slight warming amomaly reported by NOAA, namely, 0.40 degrees over the entire surface of the earth, over the last 38 years, is catastrophic, rather than beneficial.

        We have record world food production year after year!

        Is it primarily natural or man made?

        Should we empower a failed Global Political body, the U.N. to radically restrict the use of the main engine of human well being, and prosperity fossil fuels, and transfer Western wealth to the third world in “Cilmate Change Reparations”.

        I’d suggest the answer to those questions is not “settled” either scientifically or politically.

        Debate is ongoing, and should be encouraged rather than shut down, in the name of openness and transparency.

        The data we depend on from our government agencies is public, and should be available to our Congressional Representatives, as they require.

        The fiasco with the State Department records, (private bathroom servers, destruction of government records) and the fiasco with the IRS, (simultaneous hard drive crashes and Pleading The Fifth) must not be repeated by NOAA and NASA in the coming Congressional Hearings!

        The public have a right to know how their money is being spent, as the National Debt continues to grow to unsustainable levels.

      • TheDudeofVoo
      • Mike Richardson

        Well, as my initial reply seems to be in moderation purgatory due to links provided to NSIDC and NOAA, I’ll simply refer you to them for perusal of the data which supports the position that climate change is real, and related to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Facts, rather than rhetoric support this position. The reason equivalent press attention is not given to the contrarian point of view, is that it is only supported by the opposite, with occasional cherry-picked data that does little to discredit the accepted consensus. We constantly re-examine the dynamics of the sloar system, but no serious astronomer believes the heliocentric model of the solar system is still up for debate. The theory of evolution is likewise constantly refined based on new fossil discoveries, but outside of religious fundamentalists, there are few with any scientific background or understanding who believe the jury is still out regarding its validity and value. Also, if you are decrying gratuitous Nazi comparisons, you might also wish to admonish those who believe the science of climate change is being promoted by a Marxist conspiracy, an idea just as ridiculous that seems to be a focus of some of the more extreme right-wing elements around here. I’ll be happy to refrain from Nazi comparisons myself, since they should be reserved for those who actually do things the Nazis did–you know, like targetting minority ethnic or religious groups, promoting falsehoods in a brazen and repetitive manner, demonizing and attacking the free press, and colluding with Russian dictators. Not that I could think of any examples offhand… Anyway, I’ll be happy to apply that standard, if you’ll do the same.

        • OWilson

          Colluding with Russian Dictators?

          Ok. Let’s apply your standard.

          Some collusion can be good, some can be bad. Depends on your political persuasion, I guess :)

          Democrat Roosevelt “colluded” with Stalin to divide up Europe and started the Cold War.

          Reagan/Bush “colluded” with Gorbachev to free Europe and end the Cold War.

          Bill Clinton – “Putin has enormous potential, I think. I think he’s very smart and thoughtful. I think we can do a lot of good with him”. “He kept his word on all the deals we made”.

          Obama – “The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike,” Obama told the Atlantic. “He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these other folks.”

          “Russia was a help with this (Iran). I’ll be honest with you.”, saying he was “encouraged” when Putin called him a few weeks ago to discuss the crisis in Syria

          Here’s Hillary: She gave Russia a nice Reset Button AFTER they had invaded the Ukraine.

          Fun stuff!

          • Mike Richardson

            Yes, it is interesting how the U.S. and Russia have cooperated in the past. Even more interesting is the current President’s relationship, right? Michael Flynn might have some fascinating insight into just how much collusion there’s been. Fun indeed. 😉

          • OWilson

            Why so quick to jump to fake news conclusions?

            Let’s wait until the facts are in?

          • Mike Richardson

            “Fake news?!” 😂😅 LMAO!

      • Erik Bosma

        It’s too bad that objectivity is not possible or your argument would have some validity. Everything is subjective.

  • Gallilao

    The very notion that anything of any value can be derived from the arithmetical reduction of global temperature data, is completely naive and totally lacking in any scientific basis! It is obviously the product of non-scientists, or as they call themselves, Climate Scientists. Meteorology is not science and never will be, because meteorology is the antithesis of science and science is incomprehensible to the minds of meteorologists.

    The temperature data referred to, is the instantaneous measurement of ambient temperature at weather stations around the globe, although those stations are so very erratically and unevenly spaced so as to be anything but representational of the true global picture.

    NOAA would have we ignorant and gullible masses believe, that the temperature data is a direct measurement of “climate.” How idiotic and simple minded! (These people are what the gullible public believe are scientists.) The instantaneous temperature at any place on the planet and at any point in time, is the net result of the combined effects of Sun, cloud cover, local terrain, local vegetation etc. etc. etc…… climate is only one tiny aspect of the ambient temperature. Not to mention the fact that, all those variables are constantly changing from second to second. To even suggest that temperature data is in any way meaningful in terms of climate is, quite simply, stupid! The influence of climate on temperature data is indistinguishable from the dozens of other factors influencing any individual reading. To suggest that throwing it all into one pot and just rendering it down. A completely ignorant and meaningless exercize. How stupid can they get? And then they wave it in all our faces as if it is written in stone and infallible. What boundless hubris!

    The data and graphs are pure science fiction from a purely fictitious science, Climate Science. A science in name only, that should be relegated to the only thing it is good for (????), predicting the weather and so should NOAA!

    There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas or AGW and CO2 is a blessing and a gift and a lot more CO2, is the only source of hope for prosperity and plenty in the future!

    CO2 is good for our future!

    • OWilson

      Measuring the average temperature of the entire planet at a given moment in time to within one hundredth of a degree is a formidable task, but climatology, one of the ‘soft’ sciences, works on absolute certainty.

      Even though proxies, ancient tidal gauges, ice cores and tree rings and 19th Century steamship intake valves are used in NOAA’s calculations, no margin of error is ever given.

      Now THAT’S settled science! :)

      • Gallilao

        Ain’t it Wonderful?!?

      • TheDudeofVoo

        Even when an uncertainty is mentioned, is it part of the decision? The magnitude of “Global Warming” is about ¾W/m^2. There are quite a few published “Earf’s Energy Budget” papers. L’Ecuyer 2015 is one of them.
        Just pick any one of the “line items” in the “budget”
        Surface reflected 22 ± 2
        that ± 2 is four Watts per square metre “wide”
        How many ¾ “Global Warmings” fit into that uncertainty?

        Outgoing shortwave 102 ± 4
        Outgoing long wave 238 ± 3
        Downwelling LW at surface 344 ± 6
        Downwelling SW at surface 189 ± 6
        Surface emitted 398 ± 5
        Surface reflected 22 ± 2
        Sensible heat 23 ± 5
        Atmospheric latent heat (precipitation) 78 ± 7
        Surface latent heat (evaporation) 78 ± 7

        L’Ecuyer, Tristan S., et al. 2015 “The observed state of the energy budget in the early twenty-first century.” Journal of Climate

      • TheDudeofVoo

        Uncertainties even invade the “pre-industrial” era.

        So, «Climate Science» tells us that imbalance is roughly ¾W per square metre. Well, the assumption of what the Earth’s CO2 levels were, at the beginning of the “Industrial Age” (really, the end of The Little Ice Age) … some 260 to 290 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere … Just in the range, those 30 ppm between 260 and 290, hold about half of the supposed “imbalance” … 1⁄3 of a Watt per square metre. Uncertainties, as to just what the methane and ozone levels were, back then, just make the calculation of «warming» even more absurd.

        ”There are uncertainties in the preindustrial levels of trace gases, particularly carbon dioxide, methane, and troposphereic ozone (section 4). For example, the range of the estimates of preindustrial CO2 concentration, 260-290 ppm, introduces errors of +0.3W/m^2 in the current greenhouse effect (Table 3).” So, right off the bat, before we even get to the 400+ ppm of CO2 in today’s atmosphere, the guesstimates of the historical values are a sizeable fraction, about a third, to more than half, of the calculated magnitudes of «Global Warming».

        Mitchell, John FB 1989. “The “greenhouse” effect and climate change.” Reviews of Geophysics

        ”The uncertainty of the ice core CO2 mixing ratios is 1.2 ppm (1 σ). Preindustrial CO2 mixing ratios were in the range 275–284 ppm, with the lower levels during 1550–1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global climate. Natural CO2 variations of this magnitude make it inappropriate to refer to a single preindustrial CO2 level. Major CO2 growth occurred over the industrial period except during 1935–1945 A.D. when CO2 mixing ratios stabilized or decreased slightly, probably as a result of natural variations of the carbon cycle on a decadal timescale.”

        Etheridge, D. M., et al. 1996 “Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

  • James Owens

    I’d
    separate Rose (the tabloid writer at the Daily Mail) from Bates. Bates has been
    pretty clear in interviews that he in no way claims any issues with the
    integrity of the data or its interpretation by Karl et al – but his bone to
    pick is more with the way the data was originally archived. As this site does
    not like links – Source, Date, Title – so readers can Google.

    Science Magazine Feb 8 “How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a
    high-profile warming pause study”

    E&E news Feb 7 “‘Whistleblower’ says protocol was breached but no data
    fraud”

    AP news The Big Story Feb 7 “Major global warming study again questioned,
    again defended”

    Factcheck SciCheck Feb 9 “No Data Manipulation at NOAA”

  • Rocky

    The weather forecasters are wrong every day. They can’t even model correctly for the next day, so why would they have any credibility with this nonsense?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

D-brief

Briefing you on the must-know news and trending topics in science and technology today.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+