Posted on 11/06/2022 12:31:28 PM PST by george76
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ‘correct’ data they don’t like, and ‘fail to archive the evidence’ — they are frauds in the eyes of many.
Former top NOAA scientist, Dr. John Bates, led the agency’s climate data records program for ten years.
Since his time at the agency, however, Bates has spoken of data tampering and serious malfeasance; specifically, he accuses NOAA of publishing a flawed report which supposedly disproved the pause observed in global warming between 1998 to 2012.
Bates charges that study’s lead author, NOAA official Tom Karl, with 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 a crucial UN Climate Change Conference back in 2015.
The paper, “Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus,” was published in Science magazine in the June of 2015, just a few months before world leaders gathered in Paris to hammer out a costly global pact on climate-change mitigation.
The study claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998, as revealed by UN scientists in 2013, never actually existed, and that world temperatures had instead been rising even faster than scientists expected.
Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, the paper’s findings were splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
That widely observed pause in global warming simply wasn’t to be accepted by the AGW Party, and, in turn, NOAA’s climate data office was tasked with challenging the IPCC findings and prove that the hiatus did not exist. That was their aim, by hook or by crook, disappear that pesky pause, and do it in time for that crucial climate meeting in Paris.
Journalist Julie Kelly writes in her nationalreview.com article dated Feb, 7, 2017: The 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 temperatures 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 1951–2012.”
It didn’t take NOAA’s Tom Karl very long at all to ‘develop’ a way to artificially raise sea-temperatures. Karl did this by discarding readings collected by buoys, which are more accurate, and replaced them with the temperature readings collected by ships, which are found to be warmer.
“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 study’s co-authors. It was therefore necessary, the NOAA scientists argued, to “correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis.”
...
And lo-and-behold, this highly 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 discernible (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,” claimed the study, which concluded that the IPCC’s statement about a slower rise in global temperature “is no longer valid.”
Mission accomplished, NOAA.
The study was applauded by climate activists and their media sympathizers, but Bates felt compelled to call out the study’s major, and to him glaring, problems.
“They had good data from buoys,” he said. “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 that’s what they did so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”
Bates also pointed to the study completely ignoring satellite data, which also generally runs cooler. And as if things couldn’t sound any more shady, the computer used to process the data “suffered a complete failure,” meaning that none of the data had been archived or made available as required by NOAA rules. Therefore, Karl’s paper can’t be replicated or independently verified.
Bates concluded by saying 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.”
THIS is the state of modern climate science.
THIS is what the alarmists are insistent is ‘settled’, is unquestionably going to lead to our species demise, and so requires suicidal slashings of cheap and reliable fossil fuel usage and the introduction of crippling carbon taxes to combat.
THIS is insanity, particularly given that the opposite climatic reality is likely fast-approaching..
Bates also pointed to the study completely ignoring satellite data, which also generally runs cooler. And as if things couldn’t sound any more shady, the computer used to process the data “suffered a complete failure,” meaning that none of the data had been archived or made available as required by NOAA rules. Therefore, Karl’s paper can’t be replicated or independently verified.
___
I knew that this “pause buster” paper was garbage when I read it in the summer of 2015. The Argo floats were never used. I knew why. My work at NOAA had become tedious because of politics (got really bad after Obama was re-selected in 2012). The recent hires had advanced degrees but mostly in computer science or statistics. I called it the Office of science and Technology (OsT), very little science and a lot of technology. The one thing the new hires agreed about was the Alarmist position of catastrophic climate change, politics masquerading as science (indoctrination).
I didn’t enjoy my job any more so I said goodbye and retired. One of the best decisions I ever made. The Climate Forum was abuzz with whining about Congress demanding email concerning the bogus Karl study. My last day at work I posted a criticism of the study along with the following quote by Charles Krauthammer, “we are living in an age where what you say and how it relates with the facts is completely irrelevant.” So true and now the propaganda has turned into an energy crisis because of the unnecessary war on fossil fuel.
Bad mathematicians become physicists, bad physicists become meteorologists, bad meteorologists become climate scientists.
CO2 is organic AND Gluten Free.
😆
For many it’s about The Revolution [and the money].
Joe Bastardi agrees with them about “climate change”.
He doesn’t buy it either.
Most of what people freak out over is just weather, normal variations in weather that make the average.
That's gonna leave a mark.
Check
All governments lie, all of them. It is about control and power. Their lies always increase control and power.
Russia has always been at the top of the lying game. Our government here in the USA is trying hard to displace them as “TOP LIAR.”
Shared this article widely.........
On the web it has been suppressed.
Put the link on Twitter?
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.