Whistleblower: World leaders duped over manipulated global warming data
NOAA scientist slams “pausebuster” paper
The UK Daily Mail just published startling evidence that the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to release a widely-cited paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That climate science website offers further analysis, including accusations by Bates that the flawed analysis was timed to gin-up support for the wealth-redistribution schemes associated with the U.N. Green Climate Fund generated during the high-level Paris meeting. He highlights some of the bombshell report:
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
…Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
The paper in question, NOAA’s 2015 “Pausebuster”, is based on two new temperature sets of data (one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas) that were flawed. Additionally, as I have noted many times in my climate science reports, the computer models being used are riddled with problems.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
Both articles offers detailed graphs, for those of you interested in pursuing the science.
The United States was supposed to chip in $3 billion for the fund that was based on this #FakeScience, as a result of former President Obama being duped.
Thanks to our current President, we will still retain $2 billion.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I would love to see a comprehensive investigation of the Federal Government’s hand in manipulating the data and the entire AGW agenda.
“Data” doesn’t overstate anything unless it’s not data, it’s fiction. It does not surprise me that these people are proffering fake data generated by models rather than measurements to push their political agenda.
I love it. I almost blew beer out my nose when I read ‘alpha version’ of dataset.
Grant money causes global warming. Actually, grant money causes many things. Prescription drugs are now an “epidemic”. Solution… more grant money.
See, this is like electricity for those who, like me, don’t really understand it. There are two kinds of electrons… happy electrons and unhappy electrons. In order to make unhappy electrons happy, you spend money.
All problems can be solved by more grant money. But you have to have a crisis first in order to get the grant money flowing. Once the grant money starts to flow, the last thing you want to do is actually solve the problem. Once the problem is solved, the grant money stops so the method is generate the crisis, get the grant money and, like a surfer, ride the board to the end of the wave.
The world leaders wanted to be duped. They could steal more money from the people by believing the global warming farce.
“Grant money causes global warming”
Just like the FDA causes heart disease. Statin drug manufacturers need more sales, so the FDA keeps lowering its cholesterol targets, to levels not possible in healthy humans without statins. Sales have tripled.
If – and that is a BIG “if” – climate change* should lead to greatly increased global warming, the overall effect will be the hastening of a new Ice Age! This will start in the Atlantic and will be due to the melting of arctic glaciers, dumping trillions of tons of fresh water into the ocean. This cold fresh water, having a higher molecular density than the warm ocean water will sink toward the bottom, cooling the ocean and effectively shutting down the Gulf Stream currents, aka the Atlantic conveyor, that moves warm water north and returns cold water to then be warmed. This warm current supplies heat to most of the land mass of the continental U.S. and Europe and its loss will lead to drastic cooling; another Little Ice Age, or worse, will result. (This was the plot device for the movie The Day After Tomorrow, which was based on the novel “The Coming Global Superstorm”, which in turn appears to be based at least in part on a student paper from Western Illinois University written in 1967.)
*Climate Change — An ongoing process that brought about such phenomena as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Its primary causes are natural events on Earth (volcanic, oceanic, tectonic, etc.) and in space (sunspot cycles and such). The historical record shows that Man has very little long-term impact on this natural process.
… a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation …
Where was this, in the Daily Mail‘s “Oxymoron” Supplement?
Coyote has some interesting numbers that help with this.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/02/global-temperature-update.html
What a shame that you have no science background and couldn’t consult with someone who actually understands the science. Instead you all have been duped by article from an obvious propaganda rag.
See here for some actual science on this:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
Funny thing about fact checks not actually being about checking the facts.
For a much more HONEST review go here…isnt it strange how the author of the earlier study was particularly evasive about archiving his data. Seems to be a trend with so called Mann Made Global Warming ™ scientologists.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Mailman
So much for Judith Curry:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
Keep right on lying. You are simply another cultist.
The issue is not whether the planet Earth is warming. That is a given observation. It has always been how much will it warm, will it remain warm and whether the mechanism which causes the fluctuations in global temperatures is influenced by the activities of humanity?
Accurate records show that the planet earth has been steadily warming, overall, for the last 150 million years. This was occurring long before humanity reached any significant population and produced any noticeable large area pollution.
Now, it is almost certain that human activity produces SOME global temperature fluctuation. What is at issue is exactly how much of a global effect human activity has on planetary temperature. There is NO definitive study which categorically shows that human activity is the largest, or even a very significant effector of the global climate.
Two groups have developed which are rabid proponents of human activity being the driving factor behind the general warming trend on Earth. The first group is composed of those people who hate humanity. They are basically self destructive people who project that self hatred onto the rest of humanity. The see humanity as being responsible for everything which they fear, hate or dislike. The second group is driven mainly by self-interest. They use the man-made global warming theory as a means to line their own pockets. These people have embraced both man-made global warming and man-made global cooling theories in order to enrich themselves.
Both these groups simply ignore the observed affect that such things as solar cycles, hydrospheric and atmospheric convection patterns, changes in surface conditions which affect solar radiation absorption, and volcanism, to name a few. All produce effects which are reflected in the global climate. And, being global and exponentially greater than anything that humanity produces, are much more likely to drive global atmospheric warming. These things are all ignored, simply because mankind has NO significant control over them. There is not enough money in the entire world to effect any of these causative factors. So, they are simply ignored in the quest to 1) blame humanity and 2) make money for certain individuals and groups.
Whenever money is involved in anything, follow the money.
Bates has already walked back from the original reporting.