
NOAA whistleblower claims 'Pausebuster' paper is based on unverified data - mbgaxyz
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
======
mbgaxyz
Extract:

> In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a
> one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only
> had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures
> required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly
> experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously
> separate sets of records.

This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity
adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather
stations by comparing them with others nearby.

However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just
beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than
two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new
version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.

Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to
become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run
through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of
GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said,
‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully
documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by
Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue
internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the
computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can
never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

...

‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications
to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations
to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that
ethical standards must be maintained.’

...

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was
published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about
a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the
paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the
GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.

As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the
UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming
and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr
Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate
investigations... we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include
retracting that paper’. NOAA declined to comment.

