Onlangs verwees Jeroen Hetzler naar een artikel in de ‘Daily Mail’ van David Rose, getiteld, ‘Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data‘. Volgens Rose was de datamanipulatie die had plaatsgevonden bij NOAA vergelijkbaar met het Climategate-schandaal. Na de door NOAA toegepaste aanpassing van de temperatuurdata was de algemeen (ook door het IPCC) erkende opwarmings’pauze’ of hiatus verdwenen.
Verschillende respondenten attendeerden ons op hetzelfde artikel. Ook Judith Curry heeft er over geschreven: een lang en voor de geïnteresseerde leek moeilijk toegankelijk technisch verhaal, waarvan de toonzetting voorzichtiger was dan die van de meer sensationele versie van David Rose.
Daarnaast heeft ook Matt Ridley in ‘The Times’ commentaar geleverd – leesbaarder dan dat van Judith Curry. Hij plaatste het voorval daarbij in de bredere context van de talloze incidenten, waarop de klimatologische wetenschap het patent lijkt te hebben
De titel van zijn artikel luidde: ‘Climate change: Politics and science are a toxic combination’. Ik pik er een aantal krenten uit.
Back in December, some American scientists began copying government climate data onto independent servers in what press reports described as an attempt to safeguard it from political interference by the Trump administration. There is to be a March for Science in April whose organisers say: “It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.”
Well, today they have a chance to do just that, but against their own colleagues who stand accused of doing what they claim the Trump team has done. Devastating new testimony from John Bates, a whistleblowing senior scientist at America’s main climate agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, alleges that scientists themselves have been indulging in alternative facts, fake news and policy-based evidence.
Bates’s essay on the Climate Etc. website (and David Rose’s story in The Mail on Sunday) documents allegations of scientific misconduct as serious as that of the anti-vaccine campaign of Andrew Wakefield. Bates’s boss, Tom Karl, a close ally of former US president Barack Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, published a paper in 2015, deliberately timed to influence the Paris climate jamboree. The paper was widely hailed in the media as disproving the politically inconvenient 18-year pause in global warming, whose existence had been conceded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years earlier.
Bates says Karl based the “pausebuster” paper on a flawed land-surface data set that had not been verified or properly archived; and on a sea-surface set that corrected reliable data from buoys with unreliable data from ship intakes, which resulted in a slightly enhanced warming trend. Science magazine is considering retracting the paper. A key congressional committee says the allegations confirm some of its suspicions. …
This is more than just a routine scientific scandal. First, it comes as scientists have been accusing US President Donald Trump and other politicians of politicising science. Second, it potentially contaminates any claim that climate science has been producing unbiased results. Third, it embarrasses science journalists who have been chronicling the growing evidence of scientific misconduct in medicine, toxicology and psychology, but ignored the same about climate science because they approve of the cause, a habit known as noble-cause corruption. …
Besides, this is just the latest scandal to rock climate science. The biggest was climategate in 2009, which showed scientists conspiring to ostracise sceptics, delete emails, game peer review and manipulate the presentation of data, including the truncation of a tree-ring-derived graph to disguise the fact that it seemed to show recent cooling (“hide the decline”).
The scientists concerned were criticised by two rather perfunctory inquiries, but have since taken to saying they were “exonerated”.
There was the case of the paper the IPCC relied upon to show that local urban warming was not distorting global data sets, which turned out to be based partly on non-existent data from 49 Chinese weather stations; the Scandinavian lake sediment core used “upside down” to imply sudden warming; the chart showing unprecedented recent warming that turned out to depend on a single larch tree in Siberia; the southern hemisphere hockey-stick chart that had been created by the omission of inconvenient data series; the Antarctic temperature trend that turned out to depend on splicing together two weather station records.
Then there was the time when a well known climate scientist, Peter Gleick, stole the identity of a member of a think tank so he could leak confidential documents along with a fake one. Stephan Lewandowsky had to retract a paper about the psychology of climate scepticism that seemed to be full of methodological flaws and bizarre reasoning.
And don’t forget Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC for 13 years and often described as the “world’s top climate scientist”. He had to retract his “voodoo science” dismissal of a valid finding that contradicted claims from Pachauri’s own research institute about Himalayan glaciers, which had led to a lucrative grant. That scandal resulted in a highly critical report into the IPCC by several of the world’s top science academies, which recommended among other things that the IPCC chairman stand down after one term. Pachauri ignored this, kept his job and toured the world while urging others not to, before resigning over a personal scandal allegation. …
Ridley besluit zijn artikel met een oproep aan wetenschappers om zich te verzetten tegen de politisering van de wetenschap.
Lees verder hier.