Sou reviews the John Bates / David Rose affair. NOAA data protocols

Sou at HotWhopper has written an article that neatly sums up the recent John Bates Affair, with a leading role played by the notorious liar for pay, David Rose of the "Mail" tabloid and the nearly as dubious blog run by Judith Curry. I've spent the last couple days learning about it and wanting to write about it but frankly its overwhelming, though I do hope to take a closer look at John Bates' deceptive word play which deserves more attention than its received.  I was also inspired to write a reporter at E&E News, but I'll save that for the next post.

Since Sou has done such an excellent job of summarizing the affair I'm mirroring her article here.  Without further ado.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2017

David Rose doubles down on #climate disinformation about NOAA. Let's get some perspective

Sou | 5:37 PM | February 14, 2017

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/02/david-rose-doubles-down-on-climate.html#references

I've had a post in train for a week now, after last week's ridiculously wrong article from David Rose in the Mail on Sunday. He based it on another ridiculous article, that one from John Bates on Judith Curry's climate disinformation blog. David Rose has followed it up with another ridiculously wrong article, which says nothing new and in which he's just trying to justify all the mistakes and lies in his first article.

John Bates is a meteorologist turned computer data person whose nose was out of joint because he didn't always get his way when he used to work at NOAA. It was a sour grapes whine from someone who wanted attention. That's all. However his attention-seeking moan had major repercussions through the deniosphere.

In his latest article, David Rose finishes with this:

We cannot allow such a vital issue for our future to be mired in half truths and deceptions.

Which raises the question - why is David Rose himself so mired in half truths and deceptions? His article doesn't just contain half truths, he's a bald-faced liar!

John Bates slagged off scientists, with no evidence, just to get some attention

Check out HotWhopper Chat ! - internet’s serious climate chat room

My previous post is pretty bleak.  But, I’m a healthy human and hope does spring eternal even when marching into the valley of destruction.  That’s why I was excited when Sou of HotWhopper blog fame invited me to join HotWhopper Chat before it went public and to help with getting it rolling and iron out any glitches.

I’m enthusiastic about this promising discussion forum.  It’s not a place for childish contrarian arguments about the validity of climate science.  After all, the science is pretty well established.  As any constructive honest debate will make plenty clear to anyone who engages in it with good faith.  Don’t believe me? Try it!  

Or check out the folks who collect all the studies for our general edification SkepticalScience.com.

Here’s a summary: 

http://www.SkepticalScience.com/argument.php

... global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed description. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, or by popularity,

Instead HotWhopper Chat is a serious place for serious people who are concerned about what we are doing to our climate, you know, our Earth’s life support system. 

People who want a safe space for constructive discussion about climate issues and public communication issues among like minded individuals.  It’ll also be a great place to help us network and hopefully develop a sense of community among people who are concerned with climate science and communication. 

There are many of us out here, now we have a new interesting place to get together and discuss such things among friends.  Drop on by for a visit.

Visit:

https://chat.hotwhopper.com

By Sou | September 12, 2016

We’ve launched! A big thank you to everyone who helped in the early stages. A warm welcome to everyone who visits. 

#5 Prof Trenberth stifling "sceptics"?? - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015

Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University

______________________________________________ 

Mr. Jim Steele:  "And we trust the scientific theory because it been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate.  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it is looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this fifth installment I'll be debating your take on Dr. Trenberth and confront you with the ethical question raised by Lawrence Torcello: "How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?" 

____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Steele:  So you know, I've always advocated the need to be good environmental stewards and to be a good steward we need good science that we can trust.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yeah?  So what happened?

It's one thing to preach about stewardship and needing science we can trust.
It's quite another to practice what you preach.

Mr. Steele, may I ask you, do people have a right to expect our educators to be honest about the science they are presenting to students and public?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  And we trust the scientific theory because it's been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele, what kind of "lively debate" are you talking about?  
Have you given any thought to the two basic types of debate?

You know, the political style debate where winning your argument is all that matters.  This sort of debate invites rhetorical and emotional 'devices' and since the goal doesn't reach beyond winning the argument at hand, they tend to be won by the slickest speakers who are best at mesmerizing their audience.  More the stuff of theater than substance.

On the other hand, consider the academic debate, where the goal of the debate is getting to the right answer and achieving a better understanding.  This debate also requires ego and rhetorical skills and striving to win one's argument.  But, the goal of debating is better understanding of the issues at hand.  I'm fearing you, Mr. Steele and your Republican/libertarian pals, simply can not fathom such a concept.  Am I correct?

Winning the debate is fun, great, but it's the getting it right that's the most important.  Being caught in a mistake and "losing" or sustaining bruised feelings is chump change.  Learning from the added knowledge and lessons and then striving towards greater achievements in light of the newly gained knowledge, now that's pure gold.   

Consider the constructive debate.

Is it OK to ignore key evidence?
Is it OK to repeat known lies?
Is it OK to ignore the statements and evidence presented by a debate 'opponent' ?
Is it OK to employ emotional and rhetorical distractions that have nothing to do with the substance of the questions?

Is a debate an argument to win?
Or is a debate an opportunity for mutual learning?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public.

HotWhopper examines David Rose's tricks of the trade

Speaking of Tricks of the Trade I received a comment worth a mention up here:

"We thought you might be interested in our own recent deconstruction of Watts' methodology. http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/ " 

It details the "Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years" meme WUWTzers have been pounding into the dirt.  GWC looks at the 12/12/2007 National Geographic News article that started the whole thing.  Including Mr. Anthony Watts' selective screenshot cropping and what he hide from his audience.  Echo's of Dr. Nils-Axel Morner's Maldives Tree "evidence".  Not to mention that awful habit of taking an editor's sensational title and pretending it's the science.  You'll find it interesting.

Meanwhile back at Sou's place:

There's an interesting, dare I suggest must read, post at HotWhopper this morning that fits right in with my theme of examining the ways and means of how climate science denialists misrepresent the science in order to mislead the public.  Thus I'm mirroring it over here.  Without further ado, take it away Sou:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/tricks-used-by-david-rose-denier.html

Tricks used by David Rose, denier "journalist", to deceive

Sou | 3:41 PM |  WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2015

This is just a short article to show the journalistic tricks that professional disinformers use. It's excerpts from an article by denier David Rose, who is paid to write trash for the Mail, a UK tabloid of the sensationalist kind. He'd probably claim that he's just "doing his job". His job being to creates sensationalist headlines and not bother too much about accuracy, but try to do it in such a way as to stop the paper ending up in court on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Just. (The paper probably doesn't mind so much getting taken to the Press Complaints Commission. )

Here is what David Rose wrote:

Roy Spencer's argument depends on the lie

The following has been lifted from Sou's HotWhopper.com website.  She continues doing a great job of exposing Anthony and pals' many scientific shenanigans.  

She calls it "fudging" I call it yet another example of the acceptance, and rampant use, of the "strategic LIE" to win political battles.

Spencer's contribution has absolutely nothing to do with helping people learn about what we are doing to our climate system, instead he seems content with spreading deception and confusion.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

Sheesh! How's this for unadulterated chart fudging. Roy Spencer has put up a chart and proclaimed (archived here):

...the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

Let's look at how he's conned his denier fans.  Below I've plotted the CMIP5 composite mean against UAH and GISTemp using a 1981-2010 baseline, which is what UAH normally uses, and then I'll discuss what Roy Spencer has effectively done:

Data Sources: NASA, UAH and KNMI Climate Explorer

What he's effectively done is shifted the CMIP5 charts up by around 0.3 degrees.  In case you find it hard to credit that even a contrarian scientist would stoop so low, here is Roy Spencer's chart, with my annotations:

Adapted from Source: Roy Spencer

Not only did Roy effectively shift up the CMIP5 data, Roy Spencer effectively shifted down the UAH data in comparison with HadCRUT4.  This is the chart of UAH and HadCRUT4 using the 1981-2010 30 year baseline - compare that to Roy Spencer's deceptive fudge:

Data sources: UAH and Met Office Hadley Centre

How did he fudge?  What Roy Spencer has done is he's used a five year average - 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline.  Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline?  The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers.  Here is a comparison of UAH and HadCRUT4 using his shonky five year baseline compared to his normal 30-year 1981-2010 baseline.

That's not all that he's done.  If you compare the five year baseline chart I plotted with Roy's chart - his chart shows UAH lower than HadCRUT4 in every year.  That's not what my chart above shows, even using his shonky 5-year baseline.  Roy said he's using "running five year means" - which only shows the elaborate lengths he felt he had to go to in order to deceive people.

Anyway, to further illustrate Roy's shonkiness, here is the longer term CMIP5 and CMIP3 means vs GISTemp using the normal 30 year baseline:

Data Sources: NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer

The divergence only becomes apparent from around 2005.  Going by Roy's past behaviour, I shouldn't be surprised at him fudging the data to this extent, but I am. …

For the entire article visit HotWhopper.com

The Cornwall Alliance - Evangelical Science Denier and the Alarmist Fundamentalist Religious Cult

Here is an article written by Sou from HotWhopper.com - idea's worth sharing.  Food for thought.

What can be said of people who believe they actually understand God's mind?  It's one thing to personally believe and hold such meta-physical faith within one's heart - but expecting the rest of the world to fall in-line and to reject rational knowledge and observation based learning and trusting qualified experts who have spent entire lives committed to understanding their specialities.  No thanks.

Sad thing is, these sorts of faith-based dogmatists are one of the core reasons climate science, Earth observations and attempts at Earth stewardship have been so successfully rejected these past decades.  

How does one learn or change when disbelieve in observation based science is an article of Faith?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Evangelical Science Denier and the Alarmist Fundamentalist Religious Cult: The Cornwall Alliance

Sou | SUNDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2013
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/the-evangelical-science-denier-and.html

Anthony, Watts Up With Those WUWT HotWhoppers? AN INDEX

Over the past few days I've been getting acquainted with the blog HotWhopper.com because it has done a good job of tracking Anthony Watts' increasingly irrational assault on the science of climatology.  She's only been at it for a few months, but has produced many posts worth sharing.

Since getting information out there to folks who are being lied to by the well oiled disinformation machine is my main goal ~ of which Anthony Watts is a leading light ~ I have compiled an index with short descriptive teaser quotes.  For your reference as well as for sharing with others.

Sou, at HotWhopper, I tip my hat to all the work you have put into your excellent blog.