Welcome to HotWhopper Chat
Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!
Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
Forums
In this Discussion
Where Australia's electricity comes from
Climate scientists versus climate data - what's the deal with John Bates
Climate scientists versus climate data
Posted on February 4, 2017
by John Bates
A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study
By Warren Cornwall, Paul VoosenFeb. 8, 2017 , 1:00 PM
A former scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington, D.C., made waves this past weekend when he alleged that climate scientist Thomas Karl, the former head of a major NOAA technical center, “failed to disclose critical information” to the agency, journal editors, and Congress about the data used in a controversial study published in Science in June 2015. Karl was the lead author of that paper, which concluded that global surface temperatures continued rising in recent years, contrary to earlier suggestions that there had been a “pause” in global warming.
John Bates, who retired from NOAA this past November, made the claims in a post on the prominent blog of Judith Curry, a climate researcher who recently retired from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and has walked the line between science and climate contrarians over the past decade. Bates’s complaints were also the centerpiece of a story published Sunday by David Rose of the United Kingdom’s The Mail on Sunday, a tabloid, which claimed that national leaders “were strongly influenced” by the “flawed NOAA study” as they finalized the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
…..
In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.
Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “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 told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told Science Insider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” Bates says.
This guy goes straight to an unhinged from reality and climate science denial blog like Climate.etc to make his charges directly to heart of the most rabid of science contrarian tribes, then has the brass-balls to play all innocent and come up with: “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people.”
That’s not soul searching, that’s tactical PR strategy intended to confuse rather than clarify.
Another dramatic example of right-wing Religion in action - and Republican Absolutism driven ruthlessness and dirty tricks.
He finishes with: " I will have another post on this topic in a few days. Being retired sure is liberating . . ."
I dare not peek ahead, another wormhole trap awaiting, can't do it. too overloaded already.
Still I'm curious about this dude. I read http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/02/another-big-week-in-climate-and.html the comments are interesting, I wonder what else is out there.
Anyone have information or interesting links about this meteorologist John Bates and the contrarian crazy-making game he's enlisted himself into?
Comments
http://rabett.blogspot.dk/2017/02/boiling-bates-down.html
Allow Eli to simplify the issues about Karl et al. 15 and John Bates
- Bates designed an overly complicated set of procedures for climate data archiving.
- He got upper management at NOAA to sign on because the charts looked pretty.
- There were huge delays in implementation because of software problems and more.
- The process was a huge time sink.
- But it had the virtue of making Bates the Gatekeeper.
- Others were not happy with this.
- They had science they wanted to publish so they found a way around Gatekeeper Bates.
- Gatekeeper Bates went crying to Lamar Smith.
- Trump becomes president
- Denialists need an issue and cast about.
But of course, there is more: Turns out Bates beef with Karl was personal. Scott Johnson at Ars Technica writesJohn Bates linkedin profile states:
"Current
John Bates Consulting Inc., National Climatic Data Center, NOAA"
What does that mean?
Is he saying he's working for both?
Is he a contractor for NOAA's data center?
Does he simply claim that as his speciality?
Or is he simply blowing smoke by listing them on the same line?
~~~
after all, the next lines are:
"Previous
National Climatic Data Center, NOAA/NESDIS, Environmental Technology Laboratory, Climate Diagnostics Center, NOAA/ERL"
~~~~~~~
"John Bates Consulting Inc. started November 2016"
hmmm, cashing in and going for the big bucks?
Perhaps that's being unfair and quick to judge, still the question has merit.
Wouldn't it be fascinating to peek through this guy's professional emails for the past half year, as they say: Only His Emails Know For Sure.
What a day of weird day of catching up with last week’s news and then some.
Next two posts I’m summarizing the better article I’ve found. Seems to me its important for this sort of information to be presented in a concise manner for easy copying and passing on.
~~~~~~~
The drama really kicked in with another zinger by notorious David Rose.
By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
PUBLISHED: 17:57 EST, 4 February 2017
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
• The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
• It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
• America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
• The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data
~~~~~~~
From the American Geophysical Union:
CLIMATE SCIENCE & DATA MANAGEMENT
Posted by Eric Davidson | 4 February 2017
https://fromtheprow.agu.org/climate-science-data-management/
UPDATE (5 February, 12:36 p.m.): I want to clarify – AGU’s position on the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for openness and transparency in science is firm. As we stated “while climate science knowledge is evolving, these reports do not change our fundamental understanding of climate change,” and “AGU remains committed to serving as a leader in data and transparency in science.”
As to the merits – or lack thereof – of the allegations made in John Bates’ post about data mismanagement, within NOAA, that discussion is and will continue to unfold in dialogue among scientists, such as in this article by Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth and this blog post from the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units.
AGU has been and will continue to be a vocal voice in support of scientific integrity in the new Administration:
• AGU, GSA Respond to Immigration Ban’s Impact on Science
• AGU Urges U.S. Agencies to Protect Scientific Integrity and Open Communication of Scientific Information
• Petition: President Trump Bring Science to the White House
AGU believes that the merits of the Karl et al. (2015) should be and have been discussed in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journals. We note that the main results of that study have since been independently replicated by later work. In the meantime, we will continue to stand up for the credibility of climate science, the freedom of scientists to conduct and communicate their science. …
~~~~~~~
New analysis shows Lamar Smith’s accusations on climate data are wrong
It wasn't a political plot—temperatures really did get warmer.
SCOTT K. JOHNSON - 1/4/2017
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/
~~~~~~~
FACTCHECKS 5 February 2017 4:38
Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
~~~~~~~
Retired NOAA scientist feels slighted, sets world afire in revenge
By BoGardiner
Sunday Feb 05, 2017 · 1:11 PM MST
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/5/1630229/-Retired-NOAA-scientist-feels-slighted-sets-world-afire-in-revenge
~~~~~~~
DO NOT BUY THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE’S CLAIM THAT SCIENTISTS FAKED DATA UNTIL YOU READ THIS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT NOAA FABRICATED DATA; EVIDENCE STILL POINTS TO CLIMATE CHANGE
By Kendra Pierre-Louis February 6, 2017
http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records
~~~~~~~
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
By SETH BORENSTEIN and MICHAEL BIESECKER
Feb. 7, 2017
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
~~~~~~~
SCIENCE
'Whistleblower' says protocol was breached but no data fraud
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
Climatewire: Tuesday, February 7, 2017
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630
~~~~~~~
FEBRUARY 10, 2017
If We Had Buoy Data From the Past We Would Use That
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/02/if-we-had-buoy-data-from-past-we-would.html
===============
Here’s a good introduction to the basic scientific issue at play.
Recent Ocean Warming has been Underestimated
Zeke Hausfather
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnyX32nkYBs
Published on Jan 4, 2017
In a paper published in Science Advances, we used data from buoys, satellites, and Argo floats to construct separate instrumentally homogenous sea surface temperature records of the past two decades. We compared them to the old NOAA ERSSTv3b record, the new ERSSTv4 record, the Hadley Centre’s HadSST3 record, and the Japanese COBE-SST record. We found a strong and significant cool bias in the old NOAA record, and a more modest (but still significant) cool bias in the Hadley and Japanese records compared to buoy, satellite, and Argo float data. The new NOAA record agrees quite well with these instrumentally homogenous records. This suggests that the new NOAA record is likely the most accurate sea surface temperature record in recent years, and should help resolve some of the criticism that accompanied the original NOAA study.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
Retired NOAA scientist feels slighted, sets world afire in revenge
By BoGardiner Sunday Feb 05, 2017
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/5/1630229/-Retired-NOAA-scientist-feels-slighted-sets-world-afire-in-revenge
I agree, this is a seminal moment. How appropriate it comes to us via the Daily Mail, which pull-no-punches RationalWiki describes as “a reactionary, neo-fascist tabloid rag masquerading as "traditional values.”
David Rose has a long history of writing discredited articles for the Daily Mail for years attacking climate scientists. The UK National Weather Service has been forced to repeatedly debunk his claims. Columbia Journalism Review describes Rose’s work as “outrageous” “pseudoscience.” Rose is so known for this garbage that Discover Magazine dubbed an award for bad science reporting the “David Rose Award, thanks to his “flawed and distorted climate reporting.” In 2013, Media Matters named the Daily Mail “Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year,” noting that its claims had been repeated by U.S. Congressmen and dozens of U.S. news outlets.
Dana Nuccitelli published a 2013 piece in the Guardian titled “Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph,” writing:
Other past takedowns:
• With Climate Journalism Like This, Who Needs Fiction? (2013)
• Flatly wrong global warming denial (2012)
• David Rose's climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes (2010)
The highly respected American Geophysical Union, on whose board Bates once sat, rebuked Bates for taking his data management concerns to a tabloid, refuted some of Bates’ and Rose’s claims, and linked to two of the above scientific rebuttals: ...
So long as that fundamental right-wing assumption isn't confronted head on, progress will continue to be nonexistent. How to talk to people who refuse to listen and who for the most part don't even have the prerequisite Earth systems understanding to have a serious clue as to what's what.
Icarus
"This is the blog of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units hosted by the Department of Geography at Maynooth University. It is primarily used to highlight newly published research and activities that may be of general interest."
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html
Sunday, February 5, 2017
On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015
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'
...
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' ...
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)
4. 'The paper relied on a preliminary alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified'
5. [the SST increase] 'was achieved by dubious means'
6. 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out [...]'
7. 'they had used a 'highly experimental early run' of a programme that tried to combine two previously seperate sets of records'
____________________________________
Bates hasn't updated his LinkedIn page completely yet. As I understand it he resigned from NOAA recently and is now touting himself as a data consultant. He hasn't exactly started off on the right foot, has he.
thanks for being here and all you do.
I know you don't have a CC license and am not sure what your current policy is.
Hope you don't mind,
Sou reviews the John Bates / David Rose affair. NOAA data protocols
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/02/john-bates-affair-davidrose-hotwhopper.htmlfor the curious there's also this. Part of my charm offensive, I reckon.
Open Letter to E&E News reporter Scott Waldman" Global? What global?
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/02/eenews-scottwaldman-global-whatglobal.htmlNOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data
A tabloid used testimony from a single scientist to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a worldwide conspiracy.
By Alex Kasprak | Feb 8th, 2017
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/
Everyone is free to repost HW articles, with attribution and link to the original. I've got it on the Charts page (which needs updating). I'll get around to it on the blog as well, one of these days
It would be cool to get some serious critique on it, but I'm not holding my breath - everyone's busy.
I may as well lay out the whole collect (so far) on you although it's today's additions I'm feeling kind of satisfied with, dangerous feeling, sure it won't last, tomorrow I'll look again see what I think.
I take on the role of defending advocate and call up a bunch of witness by way of over a dozen quality articles written about the affair. You're in there too. I have you come in for the final sweep through, my ringer to cut through everyone else's pussyfooting ;- )