Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Science => Topic started by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 02:35:03 AM

Title: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 02:35:03 AM
This story is too big for the usual destination (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,578.msg101802.html#msg101802). It seems ClimateGate 2 is upon us!

NOAA "whistleblower" John Bates has a long guest post on ex Prof. Judith Curry's blog. Archive:

https://archive.is/eE7TS (https://archive.is/eE7TS)

David Rose in the Mail on Sunday has put his usual spin on the words of Curry and Bates. Archive:

https://archive.is/Lpqb7 (https://archive.is/Lpqb7)

More on Twitter from the usual suspects:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/828039136644849665 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/828039136644849665)

According to Mr. Rose:

Quote
Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ paper was hugely influential in dictating the world agreement in Paris and sweeping US emissions cuts. President Trump, above right, has pledged to scrap both policies – triggering furious claims by Democrats he is a climate ‘denier’ and ‘anti-science’.

Thanks to today’s MoS story, NOAA is set to face an inquiry by the Republican-led House science committee.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 05, 2017, 05:30:31 AM
Are people at noaa finally accepting that the evidence of faster than linear global warming is now sufficiently well presented? Somehow I doubt the hearing is about this issue, though.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: budmantis on February 05, 2017, 05:45:38 AM
"Republican led" and "Science committee" in the same sentence is oxymoronic.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Susan Anderson on February 05, 2017, 06:04:50 AM
You underestimate the gallery of villains the Koch apparatus and others have inserted into Trumpworld (and Republican Congressworld). Not an honest one in the bunch. I continue to be awed by the evil and harm that has been and continues to be done, constituting a large part of the life work, not yet over, of Fred Singer. Judith Curry also has a lot to answer for. Happer, Christy, and no doubt we will see the resurrection of Monckton. Delingpole a shoo-in, he's got just the sneer.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 05, 2017, 06:41:37 AM
Technically, I'm glad the republicans want to hear about science  ::) , it's a rather new method of understanding the water, earth, fire and wind, following it, rather than praying the respective gods has produced reproducible results. (Copied and Old lame fling at science illiterates such as republicans.)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: budmantis on February 05, 2017, 07:34:08 AM
I think for a lot of them "Intelligent Design" would be a big step up from Creationism.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: budmantis on February 05, 2017, 07:37:24 AM
You underestimate the gallery of villains the Koch apparatus and others have inserted into Trumpworld (and Republican Congressworld). Not an honest one in the bunch. I continue to be awed by the evil and harm that has been and continues to be done, constituting a large part of the life work, not yet over, of Fred Singer. Judith Curry also has a lot to answer for. Happer, Christy, and no doubt we will see the resurrection of Monckton. Delingpole a shoo-in, he's got just the sneer.

As far as I know, the Koch's didn't support the Trump candidacy at all.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 05, 2017, 09:02:56 AM
Ah-ha, have I found the real reason for the border shutdown? They want to prevent people like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham from entering Trumpistan.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 10:23:25 AM
Mornin' all (UTC),

I didn't get much sleep last night, what with one thing and another! First up, Zeke Hausfather's take(down?) at Carbon Brief:

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

The first obvious "anomaly" in Mr. Rose's purple prose and pretty pictures is the baseline "confusion" identified by Gavin Schmidt:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/828085939553583105 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/828085939553583105)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 10:46:52 AM
As far as I know, the Koch's didn't support the Trump candidacy at all.

Note that Susan did mention the "Republican Congressworld" too! On that note you may be interested to learn that I "pre-bunked" Mr. Rose's "Shock News" to the likes of Messrs Inhofe and Rohrabacher:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/827823720609746944

Do you suppose I should now send @POTUS a similar note too?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 11:38:37 AM
My own initial take on Climategate 2:

Climategate 2 Falls at the First Hurdle? (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/)

Quote
For the moment at least it looks to us as though the nth iteration of “Climategate 2” barely made it out of the starting gate. However Mr. Rose’s loyal army of “rebloggers, retweeters, plagiarisers and other assorted acolytes” may of course have other ideas?

Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Neven on February 05, 2017, 02:51:29 PM
I expect some stolen emails and out-of-context quotes when I hear the term ClimateGate2, not some retired ***hole with a boring non-story on Judith Curry's disinformation blog.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: DrTskoul on February 05, 2017, 03:24:29 PM
I expect some stolen emails and out-of-context quotes when I hear the term ClimateGate2, not some retired ***hole with a boring non-story on Judith Curry's disinformation blog.

Even the disinformers get old and boring....
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: budmantis on February 05, 2017, 03:28:36 PM
As far as I know, the Koch's didn't support the Trump candidacy at all.

Note that Susan did mention the "Republican Congressworld" too! On that note you may be interested to learn that I "pre-bunked" Mr. Rose's "Shock News" to the likes of Messrs Inhofe and Rohrabacher:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/827823720609746944

Do you suppose I should now send @POTUS a similar note too?

Sorry Susan, the Koch's did invest a lot of money in congressional races. Not supporting Trump tells me that even they have certain standards!

Jim, I would suggest loading your tweet to Trump with as much derision as possible. Its amazing how Trump seems to seep into different threads and I understand why members are sick of it. With Trump in the oval office, its like waking up every morning with the realization that the nightmare you had is reality!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Blizzard92 on February 05, 2017, 05:18:11 PM
The @HouseScience Twitter account is having a field day with their agenda including their own press release: https://twitter.com/HouseScience (https://twitter.com/HouseScience)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 06:17:56 PM
The @HouseScience Twitter account is having a field day with their agenda

I couldn't resist the temptation, so I just tweeted them and the donald:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/828290361416101888

Amongst others :)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: CognitiveBias on February 05, 2017, 06:40:13 PM
This story is too big for the usual destination (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,578.msg101802.html#msg101802). It seems ClimateGate 2 is upon us!

NOAA "whistleblower" John Bates has a long guest post on ex Prof. Judith Curry's blog. Archive:

https://archive.is/eE7TS (https://archive.is/eE7TS)

David Rose in the Mail on Sunday has put his usual spin on the words of Curry and Bates. Archive:

https://archive.is/Lpqb7 (https://archive.is/Lpqb7)

More on Twitter from the usual suspects:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/828039136644849665 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/828039136644849665)

According to Mr. Rose:

Quote
Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ paper was hugely influential in dictating the world agreement in Paris and sweeping US emissions cuts. President Trump, above right, has pledged to scrap both policies – triggering furious claims by Democrats he is a climate ‘denier’ and ‘anti-science’.

Thanks to today’s MoS story, NOAA is set to face an inquiry by the Republican-led House science committee.

Thanks for leading the charge Jim.  Lamar Smith is an unfortunate example of Texas' contribution to national politics.


.. From wiki
Climate change
As of 2015, Smith has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress.[46] In 2014, Smith got more money from fossil fuels than he did from any other industry.[47] Smith is publicly skeptical of global warming.[48][49][50] Under his leadership, the House Science committee has held hearings that feature the views of skeptics,[51] subpoenaed the records and communications of scientists who published papers that Smith disapproved of,[48] and attempted to cut NASA's earth sciences budget.[52] He has been criticized for conducting "witch hunts" against climate scientists.[47] In his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith issued more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54-year history.[47] In a June 2016 response letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. Smith cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s as valid legal precedent for his investigation.[53][54] Smith has a lifetime score of 7% on the National Environmental Scorecard of the League of Conservation Voters.[55][56][57]
On December 1, 2016 as Chair on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he tweeted out on behalf of that committee a Breitbart article denying climate change.[58]

Another Lamar Smith moment...
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/27/14395978/donald-trump-lamar-smith (http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/27/14395978/donald-trump-lamar-smith)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Bill Fothergill on February 05, 2017, 07:08:44 PM
In Jim's opening comment on this thread, the phrase "Karl's 'Pausebuster' paper" appears. Although used in a different context in the Mail article, the term "pausebuster" is one that is regularly (and disparagingly) used on Roy Spencer's blog when referring to the change in retrieval algorithm which accompanies the transition from Remote Sensing System's ver3.3 to RSS ver4 data.

In this spirit of jollity, I think that a similar type of moniker should be applied to the new retrieval algorithm used by UAH when they went from ver5.6 to ver6 Beta5. My suggestion would be "the Coitus Interruptus" revision, as this seems to be a method of f***ing the planet, whilst fervently hoping there will be no adverse consequences.

It is quite revealing to do a side-by-side comparison of the published TLT anomalies using these two versions, and just such a chart is given below. This shows how the delta between the two versions changes over time. Using UAH v6B5, the 2016 Jan-Dec anomaly was a mere 0.02C higher than the 1998 Jan-Dec figure. However, prior to this revision, 2016 would be 0.17C higher than 1998.

N.B. The pre-revision version of the UAH data is still used by NOAA in their Climate Monitoring pages. See here...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/time-series/global/lt/dec/ann (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/time-series/global/lt/dec/ann)

The underlying data, used to populate the chart below, reveals that UAH version6 beta5 has inflated the 1998 Jan-Dec anomaly by over 0.06C, whilst simultaneously depressing the 2016 Jan-Dec anomaly by over 0.08C. The resultant effect was to reduce the 2016 anomaly by 0.15C w.r.t. its 1998 equivalent.

Perhaps this is OT, and we need to wait until such time as there is a Democrat-led investigation in the House and/or Senate - in which case, it could be Climategate 3.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: CognitiveBias on February 05, 2017, 07:23:53 PM
Bill,
  Do you have an y specific issues with the new algo?  It seems you dislike the results and are implying some level of malfeasance.




Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Neven on February 05, 2017, 08:07:14 PM
I agree, Bill. You don't have to imply it.  ;D
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Bill Fothergill on February 05, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Bill,
  Do you have an y specific issues with the new algo?  It seems you dislike the results and are implying some level of malfeasance.

I'll repeat the relevant section from my first paragraph...
"... the term "pausebuster" is one that is regularly (and disparagingly) used on Roy Spencer's blog when referring to the change in retrieval algorithm which accompanies the transition from Remote Sensing System's ver3.3 to RSS ver4 data."

Gistemp LOTI, HADCrut, HadSST and NOAA NCEI numbers all show 2016 as being considerably warmer than 1998.

NASA's "vital signs" show 2016 mean sea level as being about 61 millimetres higher than that for 1998.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)

For any month you care to name, PIOMAS shows a loss of around six or seven thousand cubic kilometres of Arctic Sea Ice from 1998 until the present.

Meanwhile, Roy Spencer's take on all this is that, as the difference is just 0.02C in their annualised anomaly, 1998 and 2016 are statistically inseparable. In addition, the good doctor doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that, in terms of rolling 12-month periods, the last 6 (i.e. Sep2015-Aug2016 to Feb2016-Jan2017) were all above any previous 12-month average. If one takes any longer rolling average period (2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years etc.) using the UAH ver6 Beta5 date, the story is just the same.

Traditionally, in terms of climatology, average temperatures are taken over a period of 30 years. As such, each year has an identical weighting - the "cold" years have just as much effect on the climatology as the "hot" years. That seems to be forgotten in certain quarters.

It's up to you if you wish to categorise the differences produced by the two algorithms as malfeasance, observer bias, or whatever. I've plotted the deltas on a chart, and people can make up their own minds.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 08:29:37 PM
Another Lamar Smith moment...

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/828302371155562502
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Bill Fothergill on February 05, 2017, 09:39:12 PM
Whilst doing a bit of digging (on the internet, not in the garden) I came across a fascinating little snippet concerning Thomas Karl. This is the "Karl" who is referred to in the Mail article Jim Hunt linked to in the opening comment on this thread.

It is contained in a Floor Statement made by the ever-amusing "Mountain" Jim Inhofe, the senior senator from Oklahoma...
http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=230594 (http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=230594)

The relevant bit reads as follows...
"Dr. Thomas R. Karl, senior scientist at the National Climate Data Center [sic], who corrected the U.S. surface temperatures for the urban heat-island effect and found that there has been a downward temperature trend since 1940. This suggests a strong warming bias in the surface-based temperature record."

Yeah, right.

The preceding paragraph was equally interesting...
"NASA scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy whose satellite data, validated independently by measurements from NOAA balloon radiosonde instruments, show that the atmosphere has not warmed as alarmists theorize."

One could simply accept the claim about "validated independently by measurements from NOAA balloon radiosonde instruments, show that the atmosphere has not warmed", or, just for a laugh, one could look at the latest NOAA State of the Climate statement on radiosonde temperatures. This states that the RATPAC (Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Product for Assessing Climate) clocked up its warmest ever anomaly in, wait for it, 2016. The linear trend over its 59-year history is currently ~ +0.17C/decade.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201613 (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/201613)

Below is a slightly out of date chart showing the radiosonde trend up to 2010.


Where's my Climategate 3?


Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: mikkel on February 05, 2017, 10:38:37 PM
Mornin' all (UTC),


The first obvious "anomaly" in Mr. Rose's purple prose and pretty pictures is the baseline "confusion" identified by Gavin Schmidt:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/828085939553583105 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/828085939553583105)

Does anyone have an good ideas on how to get the principals behind temperature data to all start using the same *pre-industrial* baseline? For the love of God, it is so important for all communication. So much is made of 2 degree threshold, but that threshold is meaningless when they aren't shown in any of the data or official reporting!

I have seen so many media stories that are completely inaccurate about how much warming there has been, and the majority of them are written in good faith.

I am actually engaged and can't remember what adjustments to give each data set, how is the general public supposed to?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 05, 2017, 11:32:26 PM
As Zeke suggested, the latest installment of the David & Judy Show has proved to be part of a coordinated attack on NOAA by the House Science Committee. Here's their press release:

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records (https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records)

and here's our freshly extended "Alternative Facts" research project:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic (https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: DrTskoul on February 05, 2017, 11:58:26 PM
As Zeke suggested, the latest installment of the David & Judy Show has proved to be part of a coordinated attack on NOAA by the House Science Committee. Here's their press release:

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records (https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records)

and here's our freshly extended "Alternative Facts" research project:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic (https://www.researchgate.net/project/Alternative-Facts-in-the-Arctic)


Infuriating....
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 12:49:02 AM
Jim, I would suggest loading your tweet to Trump with as much derision as possible.

Is this derisive enough for you?

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/828389562170953728
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 01:24:14 AM
Ex Prof. Judith Curry is apparently quite content that the Mail on Sunday have changed the caption under David Rose's "anomalous baseline" graph.

I am endeavouring to explain to her how these matters are supposed to be resolved here in the once Great Britain:

Quote
Judith – Do you seriously expect us to accept that changing the caption and not the graph, without apology, satisfies clause 1.ii of the IPSO Editors Code of Practice?

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217736 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217736)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: FishOutofWater on February 06, 2017, 01:45:24 AM
The whole ridiculous Daily Fail article is one mistake, distortion and lie after another. I wondered about the personal attacks made on the P.I. Dr. Karl. They are untrue. There's a strong case for a defamation law suit if Dr. Karl saw fit to make it. The Mail article is libelous.

This situation is both hilarious and maddening. The pie in his own face incompetence of Rose is hilarious but the chilling effect on science of Smith's witch hunts is maddening.

Peter Thorne encouraged people, in his comments section to reblog his post http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html (http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html)

so here it is (quoted text in teal).

Sunday, February 5, 2017
On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015
There is an "interesting" piece (use of quotes intentional) in the Mail on Sunday today around the Karl et al., 2015 Science paper.

There are a couple of relevant pieces arising from Victor Venema and Zeke Hausfather already available which cover most of the science aspects and are worth a read. I'm adding some thoughts because I worked for three and a bit years in the NOAA group responsible in the build-up to the Karl et al. paper (although I had left prior to that paper's preparation and publication). I have been involved in and am a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.

I will go through a small selection of these in the order they appear in the piece:



1. 'Insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minised documentation'

Dr. Tom Karl was not personally involved at any stage of ERSSTv4 development, the ISTI databank development or the work on GHCN algorithm during my time at NOAA NCEI. At no point was any pressure bought to bear to make any scientific or technical choices. It was insisted that best practices be followed throughout. The GHCN homogenisation algorithm is fully available to the public and bug fixes documented. The ISTI databank has been led by NOAA NCEI but involved the work of many international scientists. The databank involves full provenance of all data and all processes and code are fully documented. The paper describing the databank was held by the journal for almost a year (accepted October 2013, published September 2014) to allow the additional NOAA internal review processes to complete. The ERSSTv4 analysis also has been published in no fewer than three papers. It also went through internal review and approval processes including a public beta release prior to its release which occurred prior to Karl et al., 2015.

2. 'NOAA has now decided the sea dataset will have to be replaced and revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming'

While a new version of ERSST is forthcoming the reasoning is incorrect here. The new version arises because NOAA and all other centres looking at SST records are continuously looking to develop and refine their datasets. The ERSSTv4 development completed in 2013 so the new version reflects over 3 years of continued development and refinement. All datasets I have ever worked upon have undergone version increments. Measuring in the environment is a tough proposition - its not a repeatable lab experiment - and measurements were never made for climate. It is important that we continue to strive for better understanding and the best possible analyses of the imperfect measurements. That means being open to new, improved, analyses. The ERSSTv4 analysis was a demonstrable improvement on the prior version and the same shall be true in going to the next version once it also has cleared both peer-review and the NOAA internal process review checks (as its predecessor did).


3. 'The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devestating bugs in its software that rendered its findings unstable' (also returned to later in the piece to which same response applies)

The land data homogenisation software is publically available (although I understand a refactored and more user friendly version shall appear with GHCNv4) and all known bugs have been identified and their impacts documented. There is a degree of flutter in daily updates. But this does not arise from software issues (running the software multiple times on a static data source on the same computer yields bit repeatability). Rather it reflects the impacts of data additions as the algorithm homogenises all stations to look like the most recent segment. The PHA algorithm has been used by several other groups outside NOAA who did not find any devestating bugs. Any bugs reported during my time at NOAA were investigated, fixed and their impacts reported.
 

4. 'The paper relied on a preliminary alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified'

The land data of Karl et al., 2015 relied upon the published and internally process verified ISTI databank holdings and the published, and publically assessable homogenisation algorithm application thereto. This provenance satisfied both Science and the reviewers of Karl et al. It applied a known method (used operationally) to a known set of improved data holdings (published and approved).


5. [the SST increase] 'was achieved by dubious means'

The fact that SST measurements from ships and buoys disagree with buoys cooler on average is well established in the literature. See IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2 SST section for a selection of references by a range of groups all confirming this finding. ERSSTv4 is an anomaly product. What matters for an anomaly product is relative homogeneity of sources and not absolute precision. Whether the ships are matched to buoys or buoys matched to ships will not affect the trend. What will affect the trend is doing so (v4) or not (v3b). It would be perverse to know of a data issue and not correct for it in constructing a long-term climate data record.

6. 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out [...]'

v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.

7. 'they had used a 'highly experimental early run' of a programme that tried to combine two previously seperate sets of records'

Karl et al used as the land basis the ISTI databank. This databank combined in excess of 50 unique underlying sources into an amalgamated set of holdings. The code used to perform the merge was publically available, the method published, and internally approved. This statement therefore is demonstrably false.
 

There are many other aspects of the piece that I disagree with. Having worked with the NOAA NCEI team involved in land and SST data analysis 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.

Posted by PeterThorne at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 02:08:18 AM
There's a strong case for a defamation law suit if Dr. Karl saw fit to make it. The Mail article is libelous.

How does Transatlantic libel law work? We have such things on this side of the pond, but I thought on the far side they have a "First Amendment"?

Which jurisdiction applies in this case?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 06, 2017, 04:00:01 AM
Thanks B.Fothergill for the graph.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: budmantis on February 06, 2017, 05:05:36 AM
Jim, I would suggest loading your tweet to Trump with as much derision as possible.

Is this derisive enough for you?

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/828389562170953728

Get ready for an early morning twitter rant from the "Tweeter in Chief"!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: northsylvania on February 06, 2017, 10:00:48 AM
Perhaps it's an exercise in futility to contact any politician as they simply don't have the background to understand any argument you may have. If someone were to put the points you have made to a more responsible news outlet (Guardian, WaPo?) the subject would be pre-digested enough. Links to that article could then be tweeted or sent to various and sundry.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: silkman on February 06, 2017, 10:21:04 AM
Predictably, Matt Ridley is all over this story in The Times this morning:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/politics-and-science-are-a-toxic-combination-706jm3hqv (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/politics-and-science-are-a-toxic-combination-706jm3hqv)

The sad fact is that in our "post truth" world any open and rational responses to the story will have little influence on, not just the denier community, but on the mass of folk who are not sufficiently engaged to take an informed view.

It seems to me that we may be making a rod for our own backs by putting this highly sophisticated and complex data set supporting the warming of the planet front and centre of the Climate Change debate.

We all know that the insidious increase in heat being retained by our planet as a result of anthropogenic impacts on the atmosphere are real and essentially irreversible. And most dramatic is the one that this Community is dedicated to.

Perhaps our best response to attempts to undermine confidence in the data we have on the temperature of our warming planet is to continue to showcase the impact of all that excess heat on the Arctic ice.

The ice cubes cooling our global gin and tonic are rapidly disappearing and the implications are clear.

Surely this is the counter argument that says it all:
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 11:02:37 AM
Predictably, Matt Ridley is all over this story in The Times this morning

Mornin' all (UTC)

Hopefully this will put the cat (and rabett) amongst the pigeons?

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/828534630827622401

Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 11:15:07 AM
Anybody here a Times subscriber? I wanted to bring my cutting edge research on "Alternative Facts in Climate Science" to Matt's attention, but I don't seem to be able to pass comment on his article :(

I fully agree with Matt on this hot topic, which is one of the many reasons why I "pre-bunked" the attack on NOAA by sending this message to Dana Rohrabacher amongst others on Saturday:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/827823720609746944
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: northsylvania on February 06, 2017, 11:54:54 AM
Guardian put up a piece, but it's far down in the environment section. Better than nowt.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists (ftp://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Buddy on February 06, 2017, 12:08:02 PM
Quote
Ex Prof. Judith Curry is apparently quite content that the Mail on Sunday have changed the caption under David Rose's "anomalous baseline" graph.

So.....did Georgia Tech tire of her....did Tech force her out?  Or did she decide that the money from fossil fuels was too good to pass up? 
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 12:49:36 PM
So.....did Georgia Tech tire of her....did Tech force her out?  Or did she decide that the money from fossil fuels was too good to pass up?

Allegedly she wasn't pushed. Judy makes her money from ENSO forecasting apparently:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/expensive-enso-expertise/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/expensive-enso-expertise/)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: DrTskoul on February 06, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
Quote
So.....did Georgia Tech tire of her....did Tech force her out?  Or did she decide that the money from fossil fuels was too good to pass up?

Allegedly she wasn't pushed. Judy makes her money from ENSO forecasting apparently:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/expensive-enso-expertise/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/12/expensive-enso-expertise/)

How lovely. An ENSO diviner....
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 01:11:00 PM
How lovely. An ENSO diviner....

She probably forecasts other stuff too? I only asked her about ENSO!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: FishOutofWater on February 06, 2017, 04:00:55 PM
There's a strong case for a defamation law suit if Dr. Karl saw fit to make it. The Mail article is libelous.

How does Transatlantic libel law work? We have such things on this side of the pond, but I thought on the far side they have a "First Amendment"?

Which jurisdiction applies in this case?

Since it was published in the UK, UK law would have jurisdiction. Of course, a good lawyer can argue anything so my clear cut answer would not be so clear once a lawyer argued the case.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 06, 2017, 10:56:58 PM
Note that the John 'n Judy "Peter Thorne rebuttal" has hit the streets. See

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217782 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217782)

Oh, and ex Prof. Judy is "moderating" many of my pithier comments. And other peoples. If I seem somewhat subdued over there you now know why!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: DrTskoul on February 06, 2017, 11:07:23 PM
Note that the John 'n Judy "Peter Thorne rebuttal" has hit the streets. See

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217782 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217782)

Washington times has also picked up the ugly noise...

Oh, and ex Prof. Judy is "moderating" many of my pithier comments. And other peoples. If I seem somewhat subdued over there you now know why!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 07, 2017, 02:54:24 AM
After an exhausting day battling the donald's denizens deep in the heart of darkness an ad hoc team of celebrity international chefs have created a warming and educational nightcap for “warmists” around the planet:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#Feb-6 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#Feb-6)

Once you've drained the very last drop from the virtual mug scroll up slightly to watch the glorious Dan & Dan perform their astonishingly prescient "Daily Mail Song".

Nighty night.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 07, 2017, 07:08:59 PM
An intriguing interview with ""Whistleblower" John Bates:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630 (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630)

Quote
The federal climate scientist hailed by conservatives as a whistleblower for allegedly revealing manipulated global warming data said yesterday he was actually calling out a former colleague for not properly following agency standards for research.

In an interview with E&E News yesterday, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration principal scientist John Bates had a significantly more nuanced take on the controversy that has swirled since a top House Republican hailed his blog post as proof that the agency "played fast and loose" with temperature data to disprove the theory of a global warming "pause."

Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 07, 2017, 09:01:14 PM
A Great White Con news release earlier today seems to have caused a certain amount of consternation amongst the denizens at Climate Etc.

As a reward for her excess snippage, and unbeknownst to her, I have given ex Prof. Judy a 4 hour exclusive on this "Shock News". More here in due course!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 08, 2017, 12:44:51 AM
I gave ex Prof. Judy an exclusive on this GWC news release for today (UTC). Now all can be revealed in here!

Speaking from their Ivory Towers near the North Pole, Great White Con spokesperson Snow White announced by the light of the silvery moon:

Quote
We are extremely proud to have been selected as Feedspot’s 21st best Global Warming blog on the web. Whilst it’s galling to be below WUWT we’re well ahead of the GWPF and Climate Etc. is nowhere to be seen.

By way of celebration we have some Shock News to impart!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/beta-testing-snow-whites-alternate-fact-detector/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/beta-testing-snow-whites-alternate-fact-detector/)

We flipped the switch on the first beta test version of Snow White’s Alternative Facts Wetware™ (AFW™ for short) AF detection subsystem early on Saturday morning (UTC). We were astonished when the needle literally flew past the end stops later that morning. Initially we suspected a bug must have sneaked in via one of Snow’s unprotected ear canals. However when she rather reluctantly ran her exhaustive diagnostic routines they revealed that her mission was in actual fact absolutely nominal.

What happened next therefore came as no surprise whatsoever.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 08, 2017, 12:48:39 AM
See also this take on temperature measurements in general and Arctic temps in particular from Kevin Cowtan of the University of York, one half of the now world famous "Cowtan & Way" duo:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#Feb-7 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#Feb-7)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: 6roucho on February 08, 2017, 11:22:41 AM
You underestimate the gallery of villains the Koch apparatus and others have inserted into Trumpworld (and Republican Congressworld). Not an honest one in the bunch. I continue to be awed by the evil and harm that has been and continues to be done, constituting a large part of the life work, not yet over, of Fred Singer. Judith Curry also has a lot to answer for. Happer, Christy, and no doubt we will see the resurrection of Monckton. Delingpole a shoo-in, he's got just the sneer.

As far as I know, the Koch's didn't support the Trump candidacy at all.
There's an interesting "enemy of my enemy is my friend" dynamic between the libertarian right and Trump. On the one hand, he comes bearing extravagant gifts (the renunciation of science as a source of information) but on the other hand he's everything they fear (trillion dollar stimulus, nuclear Armageddon etc.). Like a cyanide praline. Interesting times.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: 6roucho on February 08, 2017, 11:25:26 AM
An intriguing interview with ""Whistleblower" John Bates:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630 (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630)

Quote
The federal climate scientist hailed by conservatives as a whistleblower for allegedly revealing manipulated global warming data said yesterday he was actually calling out a former colleague for not properly following agency standards for research.

In an interview with E&E News yesterday, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration principal scientist John Bates had a significantly more nuanced take on the controversy that has swirled since a top House Republican hailed his blog post as proof that the agency "played fast and loose" with temperature data to disprove the theory of a global warming "pause."

Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said
It's very hard to backpedal against a tide of contrarian outrage.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 08, 2017, 12:22:36 PM
It's very hard to backpedal against a tide of contrarian outrage.

And the forces of darkness are well aware of that fact. An extract from a recent comment of mine at ex Prof. Judy's:

Quote
Yes. Of course the phrase "thumbs on the scale" (and its synonyms) is important. For legal as well as scientific and political reasons!

Has John ever uttered words to that effect. Has Judith? Has David Rose? Have any of the Alt-Right meejah? Have any of the “retweeters” and “rebloggers” and other assorted parasites? For more on that thorny topic see:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217767 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-falls-at-the-first-hurdle/#comment-217767)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: pileus on February 08, 2017, 05:04:45 PM
The linked commentary is a broader commentary on the anti-science congressman heading the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, with specific reference to this thread's subject.  The entire entry is worth your time.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a52925/lamar-smith-house-republicans-war-on-science/ (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a52925/lamar-smith-house-republicans-war-on-science/)

"So sayeth the man who's taken over six-hundred large in oil and gas money since he's been in Congress. Anyway, Smith hastened to move on to the latest wingnut cause celebre: another attack on NOAA and the science of climate change. An anonymous "whistleblower" told that noted scientific journal, The Daily Mail, that NOAA fudged that report debunking the notion of a climate change "pause" that so exercised Smith in the last Congress. (I told you we'd get back to this.) All of what Smith called "recent news stories" flow from this report in the Daily Mail. Ars Technica has a good rundown on the "controversy," which seems to consist of little more than nasty office feuds that set Smith off on another anti-science rampage."
-----------

And here is the referenced Ars Technics article.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/)

Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: DrTskoul on February 08, 2017, 05:09:08 PM
The forces of darkness don't sleep:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html)

http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-climategate-20/2709B1A4-8BB4-4D83-AB92-75602BDEF7B4.html (http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-climategate-20/2709B1A4-8BB4-4D83-AB92-75602BDEF7B4.html)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: TerryM on February 08, 2017, 06:10:26 PM
The forces of darkness don't sleep:
But they may watch over each other's trust funds.


Ivanka Trump was on board to oversee Rupert Murdoch's children's trust fund during the campaign.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-08/ivanka-trump-oversaw-trust-fox-news-heirs-throughout-campaign-cycle (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-08/ivanka-trump-oversaw-trust-fox-news-heirs-throughout-campaign-cycle)


Can't see how this would be a problem, but, asking Rupert who should be running the FCC might cause some to lose sleep.


Terry

Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 08, 2017, 07:32:52 PM
Thanks for the #Lulz over in the Mail thread (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,578.msg102398.html#msg102398) Terry!

We're starting to poke ZeroHedge with a long, pointy stick too:

https://twitter.com/TradingGurus/status/829327513566531586 (https://twitter.com/TradingGurus/status/829327513566531586)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Susan Anderson on February 08, 2017, 07:49:55 PM
You know, there are so many points of fire in this gallimaufry, but it all adds up to:

"they can dish it out but they can't take it."

Whether it's Bates on being demoted for unprofessional action and workplace conflict promotion, or Elizabeth Warren "impugning" the star impugners, it's all about who gets to speak. And repression of dissent is at the bottom of it all. Truth doesn't matter, and they miss that the planet has no truck with politics.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 08, 2017, 09:00:03 PM
Truth doesn't matter

This should interest you then Susan? My latest "surrealist programmer" press release!

Quote
Kasia B. Turajczyk, Great White Con and I would like to introduce you to our new international contemporary surrealist art in the community project.

Alternative Facts Wetware™ (or #AFW™ for short). On the face of it, it looks as if it's concerned with the absence of #AGW, but in actual fact it's subtly, strangely, surreally, sinisterly different. We proudly present to you the pre-bunking of #Climategate2:

Beta Testing Snow White’s Alternative Fact Detector (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/beta-testing-snow-whites-alternate-fact-detector/)

Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Blizzard92 on February 08, 2017, 09:17:19 PM
Unfortunately, the false narrative portion of the story is rapidly spreading again on Twitter today.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 08, 2017, 11:01:27 PM
Unfortunately, the false narrative portion of the story is rapidly spreading again on Twitter today.

Jeez - I was hoping to get a decent night's sleep tonight. Meanwhile our Save Our Surf Forecast campaign is off to a flying start:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/829395025054355456

Google Andrew Cotton. Anybody know Kelly Slater's cell number? Unfortunately Cotty doesn't.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 09, 2017, 11:56:17 AM
The scaly suckers have just swallowed my very good friend Ray's tasty bait. Hook, line and proverbial sinker:

https://twitter.com/TradingGurus/status/829642502860898304
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 10, 2017, 02:00:47 PM
Peter Hadfield is back with avengeance :)

http://youtu.be/kQph_5eZsGs (http://youtu.be/kQph_5eZsGs)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 10, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
As regular viewers will be aware I have been known to go surfing from time to time. That's one of the many reasons I hurriedly built this "campaigning" website:

The Save Our Surf Forecast project (http://SaveOurSurfForecast.org)

Please click through and see the whole thing, and spread the word if you approve of the message. Whatever you do be sure to watch how Lamar Smith deals with Rush Holt of the AAAS as he testifies before the House Science Committee:

http://youtu.be/PKevlWYsmwY?t=240 (http://youtu.be/PKevlWYsmwY?t=240)

P.S. The timed start doesn't seem to work. 4:00 is the number

Positively Orwellian. Or worse?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Bill Fothergill on February 11, 2017, 01:18:04 PM
... Whatever you be sure to watch how Lamar Smith deal with Rush Holt of the AAAS as he testifies before the House Science Committee ...

An interesting use of the word "testify" there James.

I didn't know that it could mean "sit there quietly and listen to the ravings of the Committee chairman".

Perhaps the next thing we'll see is Lamar Smith roasting a representative of NASA, with questions like "I have been reliably informed that the USAF could land a WWII bomber on the moon, so why did you lot need a Saturn V?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 11, 2017, 09:35:01 PM
An interesting use of the word "testify" there James.

Well Rush did manage to utter a couple of sentences before Congressman Smith spouted his pre-prepared diatribe.

Meanwhile back here in Blighty the Mail have been playing dumb. Or maybe they simply are dumb? My most recent response:

"An Open Letter to the Managing Editor of the Mail on Sunday (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/an-open-letter-to-the-managing-editor-of-the-mail-on-sunday/)"

It includes a prediction of sorts:

Quote
I think I’ll head to the newsagents first thing tomorrow morning, to make sure I grab a copy of the MoS before it sells out. What “Shock News” might be next I wonder?

“New NOAA Whistleblower says Ice Age Imminent!”

Please feel free to plagiarise that one if you so desire.

Perhaps not tomorrow, but one day soon I feel sure.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: 6roucho on February 11, 2017, 09:38:50 PM
Myron Ebell on BBC Newsnight tonight, blithely arguing that 25% of carbon emissions have been in the last 30 years, and if there was a relationship between C02 and warming then there would have been warming but there hasn't. He also talked about fraudulent temperature records. History will judge him as responsible for millions of deaths.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Neven on February 11, 2017, 09:56:39 PM
And the same goes for the BBC, for having that murderer on and not deconstruct his lies for their viewers (or did they?).
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: 6roucho on February 11, 2017, 10:39:35 PM
And the same goes for the BBC, for having that murderer on and not deconstruct his lies for their viewers (or did they?).
No, they didn't Neven. They gave him an easy time. As did CNN.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 12, 2017, 10:28:59 AM
My prediction in writing to the Mail on Sunday's Managing Editor has come true this morning, so I'm off down the paper shop shortly:

"David Rose's Climatic Alternative Facts and Deceptions (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/)"

Fortunately Snow White's Alternative Facts detection subsystem is still working perfectly, so we managed to get our retaliation in first:

"How Trump Won (http://afwetware.org/2017/02/12/how-trump-won/)"

Should anybody here wish to spread the word further, retweets are always welcome:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/830707376806322176 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/830707376806322176)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: 6roucho on February 12, 2017, 04:22:24 PM
Quote
DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

[snip]

No one, to be clear, has ‘tampered’ with the figures. But according to Bates, the way those figures were chosen exaggerated global warming.

Shameless. Aren't there laws about blatantly lying, and manufacturing false quotes, in British newspapers?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Blizzard92 on February 12, 2017, 07:39:02 PM
And yet another Daily Mail article being spread via Twitter: https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/830821019799715841 (https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/830821019799715841).

Hopefully, this non-story ends shortly.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 14, 2017, 12:24:07 AM
Hopefully, this non-story ends shortly.

I fear it won't be that simple. Amongst all the other "rebloggers, retweeters, plagiarisers and other assorted acolytes" Christopher Booker is regurgitating the ballcocks in the Torygraph, and no I won't link to it.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 14, 2017, 12:29:35 AM
Aren't there laws about blatantly lying, and manufacturing false quotes, in British newspapers?

Not exactly. In theory there's a "regulator". In practice The Mail gets away with metaphorical murder:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/ipso/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/ipso/)

Currently Mr. Rose's excuse for not answering my pertinent questions on Twitter is that he's "gone on a caving expedition".

Perhaps his head will get stuck in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: magnamentis on February 14, 2017, 12:32:39 AM
Hopefully, this non-story ends shortly.

I fear it won't be that simple. Amongst all the other "rebloggers, retweeters, plagiarisers and other assorted acolytes" Christopher Booker is regurgitating the ballcocks in the Torygraph, and no I won't link to it.

this kind of stuff is s far off what everyone who wants can see with his own eyes that i often have genuine trouble to believe what i'm reading, can only be personal interest (money, carrier) and/or outright stupidity.

further can anyone explain why if someone lies or exagerates and by accident is a baker why that his bread should be bad or why there wouldn't be any bread at all. where is the connection between people making mistakes or being imperfect and things (facts) that simply are or simply happen and everyone can see it?

this is beyond me which i have to admit is one of my problems, i simply can't believe/understand what kind of people exist on the that other side to say it nicely :-)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: 6roucho on February 14, 2017, 10:35:37 AM
this kind of stuff is s far off what everyone who wants can see with his own eyes that i often have genuine trouble to believe what i'm reading, can only be personal interest (money, carrier) and/or outright stupidity.
I think it's money, magnamentis. Industry is terrified by the multi-trillion dollar asset bubble implied by all the fossil fuels that must be left in the ground, that has already been priced into economies. They have a budget, and they pay people to lie.

This then gets amplified in the contrarian echo chamber. Contrarians literally don't care what's true, they only want to take a position that nurtures their self-image. All that matters is narrative.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 14, 2017, 11:27:32 AM
Contrarians literally don't care what's true, they only want to take a position that nurtures their self-image. All that matters is narrative.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

"Alternative Facts Wetware™ Web Site Revealed (http://afwetware.org/2017/02/09/alternative-facts-wetware-web-site-revealed/)"
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: P-maker on February 14, 2017, 12:24:19 PM
Jim:

Quote
and no I won't link to it.

Totally agree! We also have a (partly) government sponsored Echo-chamber in this country, and it would be ludicrous to divert any traffic in that direction. Let them die their own silent deaths by ignorance. They fully deserve it.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: gerontocrat on February 14, 2017, 03:45:21 PM
I went to an IEA report on fossil fuel reserves and looked at oil and LNG in particular. Nearly 2 trillion barrels of proven reserves and another 4 trillion barrels of theoretically recoverable reserves. At the low price of $50 per  barrel that is 300 trillion bucks of assets. At a modest profit of 5 bucks a barrel that is $30 trillion.

The only surprise is that the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation etc etc are only funded by tens of millions every year.

If you add natural gas and coal the figures become even more mind-boggling. The fossil fuel industry will be in the fight to the death.8
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Bill Fothergill on February 14, 2017, 09:12:59 PM
... The fossil fuel industry will be in the fight to the death.

Now that is a seriously appropriate turn of phrase.

The only uncertainty about it is whether it will be gigadeaths, or merely megadeaths.

(Apologies for the use of "merely" in such a context.)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: gerontocrat on February 15, 2017, 05:07:49 PM
Megadeaths (of Humans) ?

Probably. But from climate change ? Maybe not. Or more likely an unholy mixture of unfortunate events.

Economics.
The world is awash in debt (far worse than 2008). It is growth in that debt that keeps economic growth going. When will we see an "Emperor's new clothes" moment ?

Food supply.
If you live in Southern Africa (currently recovering from a really bad drought) you've got army worms (recently arrived from the Americas) and Red Locusts to worry about. UN agencies are warning that there are 4 other major famines on the way.
Soil erosion is reducing fertility world-wide. The UK is not immune, nor the USA.

I must stop - this post is off-topic. Except in that denial seems to be the normal human response to anything that threatens the next shopping trip to the Mall.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 15, 2017, 05:13:33 PM
Seconds out for #NOAAGate round two. Lamar Smith jumps from his stool, still swinging below the belt:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/#Feb-15 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/#Feb-15)

Quote
Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Acting Administrator Benjamin Friedman requesting information on the Karl study following reports the study ignored NOAA standards, was rushed to publication, and was not free from political bias.

The news release continues to describe the alleged “background”, but I think we’re all pretty familiar with that by now? The letter itself is addressed to Benjamin Friedman, NOAA’s acting administrator. It demands to see a big pile of documents “related to the Karl study”. It will come a no surprise whatsoever to our regular readers that it references the leading actors in the David & Judy show!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Blizzard92 on February 15, 2017, 06:00:25 PM
Appreciate your efforts documenting this all Jim and for dealing with the ridiculousness on social media. I expect it will continue, unfortunately!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Iceismylife on February 15, 2017, 09:13:45 PM
<snip>

Economics.
The world is awash in debt (far worse than 2008). It is growth in that debt that keeps economic growth going. When will we see an "Emperor's new clothes" moment ?

<snap>
We live on an exponential debt curve. (globally)  Last time it was this bad was in the 1930's.

End off topic.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: 6roucho on February 16, 2017, 04:55:28 AM
The is also off-topic, but I think uncontrolled debt is one symptom of a larger problem, which is the money supply.

There are plenty of conspiracy cranks who dog this subject online, but in this case they're partially right. Uncontrolled bank credit has created too much money in the global financial system, which societies are struggling to deal with, without the normal systemic response of strong inflation.

In the past, this dysfunction was swept under the carpet by inequality between nations. No one in power cared if emerging nations were economic basket cases. The fear of global economic equality is one of the drivers of the anti-science movement, because open science is a meritocratic levelling mechanism, hence the conspiracy nonsense about China and climate change fraud.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 19, 2017, 11:48:04 AM
The latest episode of David Rose's epic fantasy fiction saga in the Mail on Sunday:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-episode-3-of-david-roses-epic-saga/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-episode-3-of-david-roses-epic-saga/)

Quote
Let’s see if we can discover if Peter Stott has any recollection of being interviewed last week by the Mail on Sunday and/or The Mail’s leading fantasy fiction writer shall we?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 20, 2017, 09:27:28 AM
Peter Stott confirms he wasn't interviewed by The Mail "last week":

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-episode-3-of-david-roses-epic-saga/#Feb-19 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-episode-3-of-david-roses-epic-saga/#Feb-19)

In addition John Kennedy, also from the UK Met Office, pointed out to Mr. Rose that:

Quote
January 2017 HadCRUT4 isn't out yet.

Do you suppose David & Judy have another "whistleblower" embedded deep within the Hadley Centre?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on February 22, 2017, 11:14:34 AM
Having managed to sneak in under the WUWT moderators' radar, they now seem to have spotted that Snow White's little grey cells are not toeing the "David Rose - Intrepid investigative journalist" party line. :D

Watch this space! https://archive.is/9B5mq#selection-7451.0-7465.30

P.S. Now released from purgatory. ROFL!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Bill Fothergill on February 22, 2017, 02:10:33 PM
Michael Moon "... ultra-liberal Koch brothers ..."

WTF ???????????????????

Oh, I see now.

The Latin for the Moon is "Luna". From that, comes the term "lunaticus", which in turn was the root for the English word "lunatic".

How pleasingly circular.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 14, 2017, 10:18:23 AM
In some related "Shock News!" the so called "Global Warming Policy Forum" have finally "corrected" one of their profusion of porky pies:

"Shock News! Finally, the GWPF Corrects a Mistake!! (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/03/shock-news-finally-the-gwpf-corrects-a-mistake/)"

Quote
A scientist involved in the production of the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data set told us that once again David Whitehouse is mistaken.

Can we now expect David Rose to issue an even more abject apology in next weekend's Mail on Sunday (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/an-open-letter-to-the-managing-editor-of-the-mail-on-sunday/)?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 19, 2017, 12:30:43 AM
The Mail on Sunday have just issued an apology for a "correction" to the same egregious error as the GWPF a few days ago:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-episode-3-of-david-roses-epic-saga/#Mar-18 (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/climategate-2-episode-3-of-david-roses-epic-saga/#Mar-18)

We won't get fooled again. Will we?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 19, 2017, 06:31:51 PM
An article on the self same alleged “correction”:

"Don’t Panic! It’s Just Another Climategate 2 Correction!! (http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/03/dont-panic-its-just-another-climategate-2-correction/)"

Quote
Last night the Mail Online web site... published an excuse for a “correction” to the egregious inaccuracy published on February 19th 2017 as part of David Rose’s self christened “Climategate 2” campaign in the Mail on Sunday.

One of the numerous problems with the Mail and the GWPF’s version of these recent events is that none of the UK Met Office insiders I have contacted have any idea what the Mail might be blathering on about.


Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 22, 2017, 01:17:11 AM
My very good friend Alice F. has somehow managed to dig up some more dirt on David Rose:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/844339885959983104

Do you suppose his toes are starting to feel a trifle toasty yet?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Susan Anderson on March 22, 2017, 10:55:15 PM
Quote
re: budmantis  February 05, 2017, 07:37:24 AM

As far as I know, the Koch's didn't support the Trump candidacy at all.

Sorry I missed this, weeks late for a reply. I was talking about post-election planning and selection of hires. I'm active with politics in the US, so I've kept up with all this in real time, and try not to make unsupported statements. The web of interconnections is complex; it is correct the Kochs appeared not to care for Trump (though their suggestion of support for Hillary might have been intended to create a backlash - there was one).

My observation was that the Koch apparatus was ready to hand with qualified climate deniers and to a large extent those appointed to positions of power were so provided. Bearing in mind that Trump is inexperienced at much but bullying and lies, though the Koch billionaire network only indirectly enabled his election, once he got in power their network was available. Known individuals were observed entering/leaving Trump Tower in New York City.

The Kochs emerged circa 2009 through Jane Mayer's reporting and elsewhere (Dark Money author). For those interested, we have a new set of players, the Mercers, who are allied to Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Petition group. Here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-hedge-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-hedge-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency)

The New Yorker is a hot source with the usual restriction on articles per month. The above is from this week's issue, but they have another piece today, Paging Dr. Fraud: The Fake Publishers Ruining Science (note: not about climate). The Mercer article is fascinating (if you can't stay away from that kind of revelation), and every day they have astute, well researched, well written material on current and breaking news (OT alert: example, a shocker on the vulnerable Mosul dam).
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: TerryM on March 23, 2017, 12:32:48 AM
The Brothers Koch, who may only have spent ~$250M on the 2016 election, are planning to spending $300-$400M ahead of the 2018 midterms.
Apparently those Republicans voting for Trump's healthcare program should not expect to be welcomed at the Koch trough, and might even encounter well healed primary opposition.


So do we hope that the evil Trump prevails, or the equally evil Koch brothers. I think I'll encourage both sides to make a stand on this issue. :)



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/trump-faces-yuge-obamacare-vote-tomorrow-conservative-koch-brothers-urge-resistance (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/trump-faces-yuge-obamacare-vote-tomorrow-conservative-koch-brothers-urge-resistance)


Terry
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: budmantis on March 23, 2017, 05:04:48 AM
Per Susan's and Terry's post, not sure what the best course of action is in this case. Here we have a Republican attempt at a watered down version of Obamacare by the Republicans. It's funny because seven years ago, if the Republicans worked together with the Democrats, we "may" have ended up with a better healthcare program than Obamacare.

Now the so-called Freedom Caucus is trying to stop the Republicans attempt, with Trump on one side and the Koch's on the other! Who the hell do we route for?

With my wife being a beneficiary of the original Obamacare and this year having a very good plan contrary to the experience of others, I find myself routing for the Freedom Caucus and the Koch's! Why, because  if the Republican's plan is defeated, then the original Obamacare remains intact, at least for the time being.

Politics make strange bedfellows!

Note: It has just occurred to me how off-topic this is, so my apologies.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Susan Anderson on March 23, 2017, 05:40:21 AM
Returning closer to topic, though still a bit offside,* there is a scheduled persecution by Rep. Lamar Smith's Space, Science and Technology Committee (House of Representatives) https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and (https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and)

Full Committee Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 - 10:00am

Dr. Judith Curry, President, Climate Forecast Applications Network; Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama at Huntsville; State Climatologist, Alabama
Dr. Michael Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, Professor, Environmental Studies Department, University of Colorado

Politics dictates 3:1 Republican:Democrat choices. They hold all the cards for the foreseeable future, but this will be a show trial of sorts. My personal opinion, strictly off the cuff, is that Dr. Mann will be better than our friend Rush Holt (who got in the weeds being honest about science, though excellent) but not as good as Admiral Titley who is quietly authoritative.

(*If there's a better forum for this kind of thing (American politics re climate), please let me know.)

((Agreed on health care: what we need is a big fail. Meanwhile, the Russian scandal is building.))
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 23, 2017, 02:28:26 PM
Returning closer to topic, though still a bit offside,* there is a scheduled persecution by Rep. Lamar Smith's Space, Science and Technology Committee (House of Representatives)

Absolutely on topic Susan! What's more Alice and I are on the case even as we speak!!

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/844887203947909124 (https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/844887203947909124)

Shock News! We've even entered the very heart of darkness!!

http://archive.is/B0bEo#selection-3207.0-3207.53 (http://archive.is/B0bEo#selection-3207.0-3207.53)

Quote
When do you suppose will be the optimum time to turn up the heat under the popping pan?
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: TerryM on March 23, 2017, 03:06:43 PM
BudM


If you have a health plan that is working for you and yours, fight for it & to hell with the political fallout. Your future, both financially and health wise could depend on your decision.


Sorry it I'm sounding pedantic but I've faced these problems and understand at least some of the ramifications.


Stay Healthy & Stay Insured
Terry
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Blizzard92 on March 24, 2017, 10:32:56 PM
"In particular, he expressed support for writing legislation that would punish scientific journals that publish research that doesn’t fit standards of peer review crafted by Smith..."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference?utm_source=newsfromscience&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=smithunbound-11967 (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference?utm_source=newsfromscience&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=smithunbound-11967)

House "Science" Twitter: https://twitter.com/HouseScience (https://twitter.com/HouseScience)
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 24, 2017, 10:45:41 PM
Zack & Jim Twitter teamwork! https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/845353625954201600

Alt House Science Twitter - https://twitter.com/altHouseScience
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Blizzard92 on March 25, 2017, 02:58:12 AM
Zack & Jim Twitter teamwork! https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/845353625954201600

Alt House Science Twitter - https://twitter.com/altHouseScience

Yep, certainly disturbing rhetoric for any aspect of science from that committee.
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Hyperion on March 25, 2017, 12:29:34 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GP9_DQM2rwc

We've all been conned! The planets getting colder snd we just don't know why!
Title: Re: ClimateGate 2
Post by: Hyperion on March 25, 2017, 12:54:27 PM
Little Inferno Just For Me

It's little inferno
It's little inferno just for me
I've got the fireplace
That burns at a hundred billion degrees
It's little inferno just for me

I've got these old toys
I've got this box of memories
We'll shove them in the fire
And breathe in the flaming potpourri
It's little inferno just for me

But I thought playing with fire was dangerous
Well you're right
But up out of your chimney
Way up in the sky
It's been snowing for years
And we just don't know why
Our world is getting colder
But there's no need for alarm
Just sit by your fire
Burn all of your toys
And stay warm

It's little inferno
It's little inferno just for me
I've got the fireplace
That burns at a hundred billion degrees
It's little inferno just for me