Posts Tagged ‘data manipulation’

The faking of climate data before the Paris conference

February 5, 2017

The “global temperature” is calculated by dividing the world into a grid, determining the temperature applying to each grid element and then “calculating” (not a simple average) a “global temperature” to apply to the world. The problem is that there are actual measurements (raw data) for just about 20% of the grid elements. These 20% are then used to “fill in” temperatures for all the other grid elements. There are algorithms devised first for “correcting” the raw data, then there are those governing the manner in which the corrected data are to be combined to fill in empty grid elements, and further algorithms to be used when combining all the elements of the grid to give a single “global temperature”. The accuracy of the raw data is only about 0.1ºC while the “global temperature” is presented to 0.001ºC, and differences of the order of 0.001ºC are used to make conclusions for  “policy” decisions. Climategate 1 revealed how data has been cherry picked and fudged for the first time. The deception continues.

Dr John Bates (formerly of NOAA) is now blowing the whistle on how the NOAA has manipulated climate data:

John Bates received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1986. Post Ph.D., he spent his entire career at NOAA, until his retirement in 2016.  He spent the last 14 years of his career at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (now NCEI) as a Principal Scientist, where he served as a Supervisory Meteorologist until 2012.

…….. NOAA Administrator’s Award 2004 for “outstanding administration and leadership in developing a new division to meet the challenges to NOAA in the area of climate applications related to remotely sensed data”. He was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs). He has held elected positions at the American Geophysical Union (AGU), including Member of the AGU Council and Member of the AGU Board. He has played a leadership role in data management for the AGU.

He has a guest post at Judith Curry’s blog.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates

A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.

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.

Background …..

Read the whole post here.

Of course the mainstream, politically correct media have no time for this. However David Rose of the Mail on Sunday is one of the few reporters who still has the nerve to question the fanatic, religious orthodoxy on this subject.

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

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper. …….

NOAA data manipulation (from David Rose - Mail on Sunday)

NOAA data manipulation (from David Rose – Mail on Sunday)

There will be more whistle-blowers now stepping out from behind the woodwork.


Cooling the past

January 26, 2017

Raw data is “adjusted” and “homogenised” to show whatever is politically correct. Cooling the past says nothing about warming in the future.

Analysis: NASA: If The Trend Is Going The Wrong Way, Simply Change The Data

 In cooperation with NOAA, NASA simply cooled the past to make the post-1930 cooling go away.

Cooling the past



Marc Hauser actively manipulated data

May 30, 2014

Marc Hauser – and his supporters – have generally maintained that his misconduct was – at worst – negligence and certainly inadvertent. But the Boston Globe today reports on an internal Harvard report (obtained under FoI) which details wrongdoings rather more deliberate and sinister than Hauser and his friends have ever acknowledged or admitted.

The report is fairly damning.

Boston Globe:

But a copy of an internal Harvard report released to the Globe under the Freedom of Information Act now paints a vivid picture of what actually happened in the Hauser lab and suggests it was not mere negligence that led to the problems. 

The 85-page report details instances in which Hauser changed data so that it would show a desired effect. It shows that he more than once rebuffed or downplayed questions and concerns from people in his laboratory about how a result was obtained. The report also describes “a disturbing pattern of misrepresentation of results and shading of truth” and a “reckless disregard for basic scientific standards.”

A three-member Harvard committee reviewed 40 internal and external hard drives, interviewed 10 people, and examined original video and paper files that led them to conclude that Hauser had manipulated and falsified data.

Their report was sent to the federal Office of Research Integrity in 2010, but it was not released to the Globe by the agency until this week. ……… Much has been redacted from the report, including the identities of those who did the painstaking investigation and those who brought the problems to light.

Hauser, reached by phone Thursday, said he is focused on his work with at-risk youth on Cape Cod and declined to comment on the report.

The manipulation reported dates back at least to 2002 where he reported (presumably manufactured) data on a videotape of monkey responses which did not exist. In 2005 he altered data to make what was statistically insignificant become significant. Also in 2005, he discarded data after it had been found by a subordinate to have been inconsistent (presumably manipulated). Later, he tried to claim his mail ordering the discarding of the data as evidence of his innocence:

“These may not be the words of someone trying to alter data, but they could certainly be the words of someone who had previously altered data: having been confronted with a red highlighted spreadsheet showing previous alterations, it made more sense to proclaim disappointment about ‘errors’ and suggest recoding everything than, for example, sitting down to compare data sets to see how the ‘errors’ occurred,”

In 2007,

 a member of the laboratory wanted to recode an experiment involving rhesus monkey behavior, due to “inconsistencies” in the coding. “I am getting a bit pissed here. There were no inconsistencies!” Hauser responded, explaining how an analysis was done. 

Later that day, the person resigned from the lab. 

Conclusion that Förster manipulated data is “unavoidable”

May 8, 2014

Retraction Watch has now obtained and translated the report of the investigation by the Dutch National Board for Scientific Integrity (LOWI) into the suspicions about Jens Förster’s research. The conclusions are unavoidable that data manipulation must have taken place and could not have been the result of “sloppy science”.

Here are some of the highlights from the document, which we’ve had translated by a Dutch speaker:

“According to the LOWI, the conclusion that manipulation of the research data has taken place is unavoidable […] intervention must have taken place in the presentation of the results of the … experiment”

“The analyses of the expert … did add to [the Complainant’s report] that these linear patterns were specific for the primary analyses in the … article and did not show in subsets of the data, such as gender groups. [The expert stated that] only goal-oriented intervention in the entire dataset could have led this result.”

“There is an “absence of any form of accountability of the raw data files, as these were collected with questionnaires, and [there is an] absence of a convincing account by the Accused of the way in which the data of the experiments in the previous period were collected and processed.”

“[T]he assistants were not aware of the goal and hypotheses of the experiments [and] the LOWI excludes the possibility that the many research assistants, who were involved in the data collection in these experiments, could have created such exceptional statistical relations.”

What is particularly intriguing is the method of statistical investigation that was applied. Suspicions were not only because the data showed a remarkable linearity but that sub-sets of the data did not. The first suggests confirmation bias (cherry picking) but the second brings data manipulation into play. Non-linearity in sub-sets of data cannot just neatly cancel themselves out giving – fortuitously for the hypothesis – a linearity in the complete data set. The investigation methods are of more value than the Förster paper to be retracted.

I have an aversion to “science” based on questionnaires and “primed” subjects. They are almost as bad as the social psychology studies carried out based on Facebook or Twitter responses. They give results which can rarely be replicated. (I have an inherent suspicion of questionnaires due to my own “nasty” habit of “messing around” with my responses to questionnaires – especially when I am bored or if the questionnaire is a marketing or a political study).

Psychology Today:

Of course priming works— it couldn’t not work. But the lack of control over the information contained in social priming experiments guarantees unreliable outcomes for specific examples.  ..  

This gets worse because social priming studies are typically between-subject designs, and (shock!) different people are even more different from each other than the same people at different times! 

Then there’s also the issue of whether the social primes used across replications are, in fact, the same. It is currently impossible to be sure, because there is no strong theory of what the information is for these primes. In more straight forward perceptual priming (see below) if I present the same stimulus twice I know I’ve presented the same stimulus twice. But the meaning of social information depends not only on what the stimulus is but also who’s giving it and their relationship to the person receiving it, not to mention the state that person is in.

… In social priming, therefore, replicating the design and the stimuli doesn’t actually mean you’ve run the same study. The people are different and there’s just no way to make sure they are all experiencing the same social stimulus, the same information

And results from such studies, if they cannot be replicated, and even if they are the honest results of the study, have no applicability to anything wider than that study.

Another case of data manipulation, another Dutch psychology scandal

April 30, 2014


Jens Förster denies the claims of misconduct and has sent an email defending himself to Retraction Watch.


One would have thought the credentials of social psychology as a science – after Diedrik Staple, Dirk Smeesters and Mark Hauser – could not fall much lower. But data manipulation in social psychology would seem to be a bottomless pit.

Another case of data manipulation by social psychologists has erupted at the University of Amsterdam. This time by Jens Förster professor of social psychology at the University of Amsterdam and his colleague Markus Denzler. 

Retraction Watch: 

The University of Amsterdam has called for the retraction of a 2011 paper by two psychology researchers after a school investigation concluded that the article contained bogus data, the Dutch press are reporting.

The paper, “Sense Creative! The Impact of Global and Local Vision, Hearing, Touching, Tasting and Smelling on Creative and Analytic Thought,” was written by Jens Förster and Markus Denzler  and published in Social Psychological & Personality Science. ….

Professor Jens Förster

Jens Förster is no lightweight apparently. He is supposed to have research interests in the principles of motivation. Throughout my own career the practice of motivation in the workplace has been a special interest and I have read some of his papers. Now I feel let down. I have a theory that one of the primary motivators of social psychologists in academia is a narcissistic urge for media attention. No shortage of ego. And I note that as part of his webpage detailing his academic accomplishments he also feels it necessary to highlight his TV appearances!!!!

Television Appearances (Selection) 

Nachtcafé (SWR), Buten & Binnen (RB), Hermann & Tietjen (NDR), Euroland (SWF), Menschen der Woche (SWF), Die große Show der Naturwunder (ARD), Quarks & Co (WDR), Plasberg persönlich (WDR), Im Palais (RBB), Westart (WDR)

They love being Darlings of the media and the media oblige!

As a commenter on Retraction Watch points out, Förster also doubles as a cabaret artist! Perhaps he sees his academic endeavours also as a form of entertaining the public.

Rolf Degen: I hope that this will not escalate, as this could get ugly for the field of psychology. Jens Förster, a German, is a bigger name than Stapel ever was. He was repeatedly portrayed in the German media, not the least because of his second calling as a singer and a cabaret artist, and he has published an enormous amount of books, studies and review papers, all high quality stuff

This revelation occurs at a bad time for Förster, write the Dutch media. He is supposed to work as “Humboldt professor starting from June 1, and he was awarded five million Euros to do research at a German university the next five years. He is also supposed to cooperate with Jürgen Margraf – who is the President of the “German Society for Psychology” and as such the highest ranking German psychologist.

Another warming hockey stick is withdrawn/”put-on-hold” for bad data

June 9, 2012

One would think that after Climategate, climate scientists would be a little more careful with their “trickery”.

When a supposedly peer reviewed paper in the American Meteorological Society Journal  is withdrawn / “put on hold” after publication when the on-line community (Jean S / Steve McIntyre) find the authors to have cherry picked and improperly “massaged their data, it says 2 things:

  1. that the peer review process at the AMS is either incompetent or corrupt (in that it is especially friendly to papers propounding the global warming orthodoxy), and
  2. that the “tricks” revealed by Climategate are still being actively used by so-called climate scientists  to support their beliefs

That one of the authors – probably responsible for this cock-up – a Joelle Gergis from the University of Melbourne, is more an “activist” than a “scientist” does not help matters . Going through the abstracts of her list of publications suggests that she often decides on her conclusions first and then selects data and writes her papers to fit the conclusions. Cherry picking data is bad enough but when it is done because of confirmation bias it is perhaps the most insidious form of scientific misconduct there is.

Interestingly is no longer available.

The authors have deleted this blog.

The AMS Journal “peers” who reviewed this paper don’t come out of this very well either. But of course they will receive no strictures for a job done badly.


Gergis et al “Put on Hold”

American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws

Gergis paper disappears

Another Hockey Stick broken

%d bloggers like this: