over here. I just started reading it, and damn!
The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.
In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.
I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90%
confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of
surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of
95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A
NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work
the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to
emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the
evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the
scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of
datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus
and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and
international deliberations on climate policy.
This isn't 'sloppy' or 'error in procedure', this is deliberate. Hell, this may well be actually criminal. And very much an abuse of science.