In this new political era, climate scientists and their science are under attack. The attack is from multiple fronts, from threats to pull funding of the important instruments they use to measure climate change, to slashing their salaries and jobs. But there is a real fear of renewed personal attacks, and it appears those fears are now being realized. What the attackers do is identify and isolate scientists – a process termed the “Serengeti Strategy” by well-known and respected scientist Michael Mann who suffered these types of attacks for years.
The author of the recent attack piece, David Rose in the UK, has a history of denying the well-established science of climate change. He has a long history of making incorrect climate change statements. In the attack, Mr. Rose claims that scientists used misleading data in a recent (2015) paper that studied the rate of temperature change across the globe. He reportedly obtained information from someone who works at NOAA to imply that internal review procedures were not followed as the paper was prepared for publication. What Mr. Rose omitted however, is incredibly telling and he does a disservice to his readers.
First, he neglects to mention that the work from the 2015 paper authored by Dr. Thomas Karl and others at NOAA has already been independently verified by other researchers.
The second thing Rose neglects to mention is that his story’s source was never involved any part of the work. According to a colleague of the authors Peter Thorne, this source:
never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these misrepresentations are publically verifiable.
Mr. Rose further neglects to mention that Dr. Karl was not involved in the development of the critical sea surface temperature data that was used in the study. That information was already published before the Karl paper appeared.
The attack piece also claims that the scientists discarded high-quality temperature measurements in favor of low quality data. This claim is demonstrably false, as described here and here.
The lengths to which Mr. Rose goes in his attack are disheartening and dishonest. He includes a graph that appears to show two temperature results that disagree. When they are replotted correctly, as temperature anomalies with correct baselines, the discrepancy disappears. This finding shows that the NOAA results from 2015 actually agree extremely well with data from other institutions.
Hilarious screw up by @DavidRoseUK and #FailOnSunday
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) February 5, 2017
1st picture is 'evidence' of misconduct, 2nd shows diff when baselines are correct. pic.twitter.com/R5VsqqlNHr
But it gets even worse for Rose. Temperature measurement expert Zeke Hausfather, who was the lead author on a study that verified the temperature data, wrote a very quick response to his article. He provided this comparison, which includes data from five different scientific groups. They are all in strong agreement.
NEW | Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise | Guest post by @hausfath https://t.co/e7gGNGxIKc pic.twitter.com/BruRecUo34
— Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief) February 5, 2017
So Mr. Rose and the climate-change denialists will have to work a bit harder next time. The real story here is that the denial industry has lost the battle on the science. There are no reputable scientists who discount the enormous human influence on our Earth’s climate. Because they have lost that battle, they are manufacturing doubt about the science. They are making misleading claims and attacking scientists with intimidating tactics. This is a playbook that has been used for years. It should alarm everyone that excellent researchers like Dr. Thomas Karl from NOAA can be attacked for just telling us what the data says.
