NOAA vs Mail on Sunday — FACT CHECK


0:00 —

0.09 –

0:20 — “Possible artefacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” Karl et. Al, Science 2015

0:42 —

1:20 –

3:39 — Why don’t they adjust the ship data down? Because it makes absolutely no difference to the result but takes a lot more man hours. I wrote to Dr. Zeke Hausfather with this question and he replied: “NOAA adjusted buoys up to match the ship record in version 4 of their ocean temperature record simply because ships make up 90% of our ocean record, with buoys only available in recent years. In response to folks getting confused about this, NOAA will be adjusting ships down to buoys in their upcoming version 5, but this makes no difference on the resulting temperature trends.”

4:13 – “Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSSTv4). Part 1: Upgrades and Intercomparisons” – Huang et al, Journal of the American Meteorological Society 2015

6:00 — David Rose’s previously challenged “quote” was from Murari Lal in 2010.

6:10 —

7:18 —

7:32 —

8:38 – “Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records” – Hausfather et al., Science 2017

9:30 —

10:28 — Ibid.


23 thoughts on “NOAA vs Mail on Sunday — FACT CHECK

  1. MrEganator September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Can you refute the work that James Corbett of the Corbett Report has done on climate change?

  2. MrEganator September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Can you review Dr Judith Curry's work on climate change please?

  3. Brian R. Hamilton September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    So the temperature data was in fact adjusted upwards rather than downwards despite the fact that the absolutely more accurate thing to do would have been to adjust the data downwards. I understand this would not have any effect on differentials/trends but it is obviously a large public perception issue IMO.

  4. Univeяsal Pяoductions™ September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Climategate 2: Electric Boogaloo

  5. Michael Craft September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Which leads to the question, how much uncertainty is there in Climate Science? Enough to "update the data" on a constant basis. Does this change the doomsday scenarios which we will presumably fix with a carbon tax?

  6. Ted LaughsAtCreationists September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Only fools believe scientists are paid to lie about climate change. It only takes one or two scientists not to be paid and the lie would crumble. Conspiracies are the worst theories and so easily debunked.

  7. Jay Davis September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    I think all of your climate change videos should be mandatory viewing in my country (United States) in schools and government.

  8. Wellington Boobs September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Of course everything you say is correct as usual. What though ought to be the penalty for the publishers who print this nonsense and deliberately mislead the public? If it can be shown that they have vested interests in businesses which are pumping more poisons into the biosphere, shouldn't they be closed? In a rational society, I mean. We're not talking accidental mistakes but calculated efforts to keep a public dumb to the realities of the actual costs of their business operations.

  9. Wellington Boobs September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Why does the daily mail even exist? Oh that's right — it's so that thick-cunt xenophobic hatemongers feel they have something intellectual to read, given that the sun is very soft and stodgy with the facts of the world.

  10. Hugo Last September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Its the throw it down easy which you like.
    Yes you are verry good.
    And then what do yo intent change ??

  11. Solder Joe September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm


    Here is more fodder for your videos. This guy has convinced people that he's truthful by talking about many other issues. He's now in the past few months tured climate denial. He and his followers need to be told why he's wrong like only Potholer54 can do.

  12. Thou Art That September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    What is potholer's opinion in summary …. I've watched a couple of vids and he qualifies and debunks …does he take a position?

  13. bjhodge8 September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Twaddle on an oceanic scale. I begin to think the 'pothole' of your online moniker refers metaphorically to the missing material of your addled pate. You are either ignorant of scientific method or a crude practicer of sophistry.
    The quality of data in any given study is a product of the level of "noise" in the data and the sample size. "Noise' refers to unwanted and unknown natural phenomenon and human or civilizational artifacts, such as, temperature records tainted by the 'noise' of ships' heat output, while collecting data from ocean-going vessels. Since noise is by definition an unknown and undesired element, both quantitatively and qualitatively, no knowledgeable or unbiased researcher would seek to compound the "noise' by converting good untainted data, through extrapolation based on an unknown variable (the earlier tainted data), Into a data set that would now include the added 'noise' of this 'best guesstimate' of the original data's 'noise' quotient. This procedure would result in adding a human element to the already discredited data set with unknown quantities of misjudgement and/or bias. This is why the NOAA broke with scientific protocol and did not allow the paper to be peer reviewed before publishing.
    No amount of sophistical rationalization can make this dubious maneuver look like anything other, than what it is, junk-science!

  14. Wilhelm September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Hi there Potholer! There is a video called "Climate change the skeptics case" that maybe you could go through? It is hard for me to seperate fact from fiction there. Certainly some points they have are true – or? Some of the graphs are cherrypicked, I can see that from your previous films. I have also checked some things like the ocean measurements which they claim have not been changing with measurements from 2003. Is that true? Either way I think it could be a great video to go through since it has quite many viewers and is making everything sound so simple (and therefore "trustworthy").

    Here is a direct link to the video:

  15. Austin Smith September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    I've been getting questions from people about "Doctor" R. W. Spencer's work with satellite temperatures in the troposphere, and how they don't correlate with the global warming trend.

    I've shown them papers by Dr. Konstantin Vinnikov and Norman C. Grody "Global Warming Trend of Mean Troposphereic Temperature Observed by Satellites" (Science Vol 302 10 OCT 2003 p.269). and Vinnikov, et all. "Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere" (Journal of geophysical Research, Vol. 111 D03106). Basically, the response is "LALALALALALALALALA, Dr. Mann lied, IPCC cover up, follow the money." sign

    I guess what I'm asking is, "Any idea on when you're going to make an arguing with assholes part II?"

    PS: Thank you for your work.

  16. Kevin Gallagher September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    as a former climate "skeptic," I'd like to thank you. Your videos are concise, and compelling and I've learned a lot about skepticism, fact checking, and climate change watching these videos.

  17. anticorncob6 September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    The video is 98% likes but the comments section is 35% climate change deniers.

  18. Atomsk's Sanakan September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    Just thought you should know that John Christy has bought into the NOAA conspiracy theory:

    "[…] this trend slope finding result does suggest that some NOAA data manipulation may have taken place [43].
    Finally, it should again be noted that the structural analysis model seemed to work remarkable well on this data. That is not to say that the tool does not suggest some possible data manipulation [58]."


  19. Larry Dunn September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    my question is were did the the IPCC find all the super accurate thermometers that allowed them to determine the .5 increase. In fact most thermometer do good to measure in 2 degree increments. Also the NOAA building here started in a field now it's in a city, asphalt and buildings. Should we add in the known heat sink of cities?

  20. Richard Watt September 13, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    potholer, this may be a stupid question, but if you take readings from 2 sources and 1 of them is then shown to have a bias, wouldn't that then be highlighted in the paper where the data's used?

    And would it be possible to include data on the magnitude of the bias in question?

    Edit: Okay, I think you've answered me later in the video, sorry about that.

Leave a Reply