2017-02-07 23:44:37 UTC
by Julie Kelly February 7, 2017 4:00 AM
The NOAA 'corrected' data they didn't like and - surprise - didn't archive
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 whistle-blower, Dr. John Bates, led NOAA's 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
government's top agency in charge of climate science published a flawed
but widely accepted study that was meant to disprove the hiatus in global
Bates accuses the study's 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
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 d'être of the conference. Climate activists were sweating over the
acknowledgment 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 1951-2012.'"
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 study's 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 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."
The study then concluded that the IPCC's 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
that's 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 Karl's 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 Karl's report. For now, Science magazine is
standing by its publication of Karl's 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 that's a story for another day.) None of the data had been
archived or made available as required by NOAA rules, which means that
Karl's paper cannot be replicated or independently verified. 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 Karl's report, but the
agency has refused to cooperate.
In October 2015, Smith's committee issued subpoenas for the documents;
NOAA released some technical papers but not the requested correspondence,
arguing that taxpayer-paid scientists don't have to disclose their emails
with other taxpayer-paid scientists about a taxpayer-paid study.
In a statement Sunday, Smith applauded Bates's courage for speaking out:
"Dr. Bates' revelations and NOAA's obstruction certainly lend credence to
what I've been saying all along - that the Karl study used flawed data,
was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president's climate
change agenda, and ignored NOAA's 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, Bates's actions could have long-lasting repercussions, not
the least of which could be to encourage others to speak out about what's
been going on at federal scientific agencies. It's long overdue.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444668/whistle-blower-
"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"
"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"
"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"
"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"
"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"
"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"
"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"
UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism