Posted on 02/07/2017 7:05:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has stepped forward to expose the malfeasance behind a key climate report issued just before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015. The whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, led NOAAs climate-data records program for ten years and reveals stunning allegations in a lengthy Daily Mail exposé posted February 4. His main charge is that the federal governments top agency in charge of climate science published a flawed but widely accepted study that was meant to disprove the hiatus in global warming. Bates accuses the studys lead author, NOAA official Tom Karl, of using unverified data sets, ignoring mandatory agency procedures, and failing to archive evidence all in a blatant attempt to intensify the impact of the paper in advance of the conference.
The study, Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus, was published in Science magazine in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders gathered in Paris to hammer out a costly global pact on climate-change mitigation. It refuted evidence from other climate-research groups that showed a major slowdown in rising global temperatures from 1998 to 2012; the slowdown was a sticky little fact that threatened to undermine the very raison dêtre of the conference. Climate activists were sweating over the acknowledgement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 that the rate of warming over the past 15 years . . . is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951. The IPCC walked back its own predictions from 2007 that short-term temperature would rise between 1 and 3 degrees Celsius. The IPCC in 2013 concluded that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998 to 2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years and the rise in global temperatures was estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 19512012.
So Karl, the former head of the NOAA office that produces climate data, worked with a team of scientists to challenge the IPCC findings and prove that the hiatus did not exist. He claimed to have developed a way to raise sea-temperature readings that had been collected by buoys: He would adjust them by using higher temperature readings of sea water collected by ships. In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data, said one of the studys co-authors. It was therefore necessary, the NOAA scientists held, to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis.
Now get ready to be shocked. This dubious methodology concluded that the warming trend for 2000 to 2014 was exactly the same as it was for 1950 to 1999: There is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. The study then concluded that the IPCCs statement about a slower rise in global temperature is no longer valid. (It takes a lot of chutzpah to out-climate the international climateers.)
The study was cheered by climate activists and their media sympathizers around the world, but Bates says the study had major problems. They had good data from buoys, he told the Daily Mail. And they threw it out and corrected it by using the bad data from ships [a natural warming source]. You never change good data to agree with the bad, but thats what they did so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer. Bates also said the study ignored satellite data.
And in the most Obama-esque move, Bates said that the computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure and that none of the data had been archived or made available as required by NOAA rules, which means that Karls paper cannot be replicated or independently verified. According to Bates, the NOAA is drafting a new version of the report that will reverse the flaws in Karls report. For now, Science magazine is standing by its publication of Karls study, claiming it underwent rigorous peer review and dismissing as baseless and without merit any notion that the study was rushed to coincide with the Paris conference. (The Cato Institute has knocked Science for its biased global warming coverage, but thats a story for another day.)
In a separate post on the blog Climate Etc., Bates laments that government scientists routinely fail to save their work: The most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. Bates notes that the very scientists who have failed to save data are now suddenly concerned that the Trump administration might destroy climate data.
Bates is not fighting this fight alone. Representative Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has been asking NOAA for all communications related to Karls report, but the agency has refused to cooperate. In October 2015, Smiths committee issued subpoenas for the documents; NOAA released some technical papers but not the requested correspondence, arguing that taxpayer-paid scientists dont have to disclose their emails with other taxpayer-paid scientists about a taxpayer-paid study.
In a statement Sunday, Smith applauded Batess courage for speaking out: Dr. Bates revelations and NOAAs obstruction certainly lend credence to what Ive been saying all along that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the presidents climate change agenda, and ignored NOAAs own standards for scientific study.
With a sympathetic administration in power, Smith should now be able to get to the bottom of how the Karl study was conducted and who else helped move it along. And despite the personal attacks on his character and credibility, Batess actions could have long-lasting repercussions, not the least of which could be to encourage others to speak out about whats been going on at federal scientific agencies. Its long overdue.
Never get between the “scientists” and cold hard cash.
They will turn you into road kill.
It is FRAUD!!
Perpetrated with malice of forethought.
not “shoddy”.
“Shoddy” implies sloppy or accidental.
I agree. This goes far beyond shoddy. This is intentional.
Soros
None of the data can be replicated?
LOL... Screaming - THIS IS NOT DEVOID OF THE CON... liberals are such lame liars.
Is he a climatologist too? More power to him, but climatology is NOT a legitimate physical science. Way too many variables.
“For now, Science magazine is standing by its publication of Karls study, claiming it underwent rigorous peer review and dismissing as baseless and without merit any notion that the study was rushed to coincide with the Paris conference.”
Science Mag is now covering-up.
What a disgrace.
I saw this report on ONE TV station - FOX BUSINESS.
And, one radio program - Rush Limbaugh.
Climate change fraud bump for later....
If the experiment cannot be verified or replicated, it violates requisite protocols of the scientific method and is invalided on its face.
claiming it underwent rigorous peer review<<
Now its time to name names!!!...Who are these “peers”???
Ohhh..... is that “data” lost too???
ping
You’re right Sgt...
Snort//////S
“According to the revelations from the Climategate scandal in the UK, the AGW True Believers sought to control the peer review process to filter-out anything that does not support their religion. “
Right, I remember that, something like: “we’re going to change the definition of ‘peer-review’ if we have to...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.