No way! They lied… Again?

I could set this all up and write as if I am totally surprised to find out that top men at NOAA have been lying again for political reasons, but that stuff is getting old and sad. Lets just read the thing and get to the most recent revelations of malfeasance by the credentialed elite with an agenda:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic 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.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

Where to begin? Tom Brady won a fifth NFL title for New England, pissing off that douchebag Goodell and setting up the stage for a ton of libs pants shitting when he and Bill Belichick meet with Trump and are all happy about it. No wait. That’s a different story for a different day. So I guess I will start with the revelation that this paper was not peer reviewed and was presented as critically important scientific fact by people with an agenda. I wish I could say this revelation somehow was a surprise as well, but considering how much made up shit, rigged data & models, massaged systems that always produce the same cataclysmic results, and whole cloth exaggerations, if not downright making up fake crap, have been part & parcel of this cult, that would drag me down to the level of these people. You of course ask yourself, how could this happen? What about scientific rigor and oversight? Well, here is what we find out next:

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’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

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.

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was 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.

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.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Get that? The very director of NOAA’s climate data production factory rigged the game to produce the desired results that would fit the narrative by the cultists that the end was nigh. Of course, as we know, this is neither new nor uncommon behavior with these people, whom for some reason don’t lose their scientific credibility after being caught red handed fabricating the results they want to push the agenda, because the whole thing is political.

So since you can’t defend this indefensible anti-science behavior, I expect the cultists to attack a man with the following credentials for not believing the correct dogma that they sell by consensus.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

I am certain that this infidel will be punished for letting us take another peek behind that dirty curtain. The sad fact is that these idiots have themselves to thank for the lack of credibility they suffer from, and for the reactions clear thinking people – those of us that respect the scientific process – have towards them. When the crap hit the fan a long time ago when neither the models nor the predictions bore any resemblance to reality, had these people really been interested in making the case with science, the correct action would have been to go back to the drawing board. We got none of that. They basically doubled down on the nonsense, screamed even louder, denigrated and called anyone that pointed out they had nothing to really stand on, accusing them of being deniers, all of which were clear signs you were dealing with a cult.

Revelations like this, only serve to make it even more clear that we are not dealing with anything scientific. Well that and the fact that the solution to this calamity always boils down to some massive wealth redistribution scam that removes more of our freedoms, drastically grows the nanny state, seems to have a scary eugenics bent at its center, and without a fault always serves to enrich a small cadre of establishment credentialed elites. This nonsense has been very lucrative for a connected few, and a costly and idiotic thing for the rest of us. It’s time it died and the reds picked a new calamity to push their agenda with. Maybe a meteorite strike or an alien invasion.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Oh good. More Daily Mail bullshit.  Even at face value all this means is that the ocean of data showing global warming is real … is still valid.  Hundreds of papers were published in this field last year, dozens on the temperature data lone.  We’re at a record low sea ice and record high temperatures.  But one paper was rushed out so CONSPIRACY! LIBRULS!  COMMUNISTS!  FIRE! FEAR! FOES!

    Seriously.  Hat with tin foil in it.  Works wonders.

    Thumb up 4

  2. Hal_10000

    Oh, look! It’s another David Rose story that turned out to be complete BS! You ever gonna get tired of writing these posts only to find out that everything you’ve written is garbage? Here’s Berkeley Earth – home of climate skeptics, pointing out that their results have now been confirmed.

    Thumb up 4

  3. AlexInCT *

    Oh good. More Daily Mail bullshit.  Even at face value all this means is that the ocean of data showing global warming is real … is still valid.  

    You mean the shit that we all now know was made up but you still pretend is valid? Yeah, I thought so…

    Religious fervor and all that. Hallelujah! And pass the carbon credits, I guess.

    Pray tell how the scientific community would have responded to revelations like this in a different field, let’s say, the people in astrophysics. had they started making easily disproved doomsday predictions that not only failed to happen, but when called on it and people pointed out they had been politicizing/faking data, models, and even the science, doubled down on the stupid. Do you think these scientists would be able to brand others heretics, and still keep their credibility?

    Just asking… for a friend.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    Here’s Berkeley Earth – home of climate skeptics, pointing out that their results have now been confirmed.

    So they used data that was already fudged to prove what? That they end up with stuff that matches the other study that used bad data? OK. I guess you win then….

    Thumb up 0

  5. West Virginia Rebel

    Just like every year for about the last twenty years has been the Warmest Year Ever. In the Seventies they did this with overpopulation and now the reverse is happening. But it’s Science so we shouldn’t question it.

    Thumb up 0

  6. stogy

    A smart rule is to apply Hal’s precautionary principle on Trump to anything at all written by David Rose. 98% of what he writes on climate change turns out to be complete bs within 48 hours.

    This will just feed into another round of witch hunting against scientists, and in 6 months time it will come out that a) the science is right, b) scientists did nothing wrong, and c) we’ll have lost another year of efforts to keep warming under 2 degrees.

    Thumb up 4

  7. stogy

    But it’s Science so we shouldn’t question it.

    No, you should question it. But hundreds of different lines of evidence point to increasing global temperatures. From US fire service expanding the length of the firefighting season to animal and plant population migration to melting polar ice to dying coral reefs. One trumped up conspiracy by a long term fake sceptic does not mean the science is trashed.

    Thumb up 4

  8. AlexInCT *

    No, you should question it.

    Funny that people like you say this as long as we then stay lockstep with the narrative. If you actually value the scientific principle and understand this is all political so you don’t accept it after question it, you are a denier….

    But hundreds of different lines of evidence point to increasing global temperatures. 

    You mean a politically driven echo chamber that has been caught making up shit, destroying data so it couldn’t be checked, creating models that have never been close to accurate, and tons of dumb predictions not a one of which has come true? Yeah, then you are right. Most of the science I have seen is that these people have no clue how this complex system actually works, a fact well shown by the evidence of how off they constantly are, but act as if they have absolute conviction on their side.

    Thumb up 0

  9. stogy

    You mean a politically driven echo chamber that has been caught making up shit, destroying data so it couldn’t be checked, creating models that have never been close to accurate, and tons of dumb predictions not a one of which has come true?

    Ah. Still haven’t looked at the actual science, eh? Still getting your daily dose of misinformation from Marc Morano? A man who is paid to mislead And firefighters and farmers are not part of the “politically driven echo chamber”.

    When you look at the climate science, we can talk about the science.

    Thumb up 1

  10. richtaylor365

    Stogy, I try to avoid these AGW posts, little is ever accomplished, but just a quick comment. You brought up firefighters, you do understand the money angle in all this, right? It is self serving for firefighters to over hype the fire dangers as a result of climate change. Just like law enforcement over hyping crime, the results are more hiring, raises, better equipment, all shit that benefits those making the dire predictions. Such as;

    Yet making such tough choices must come coupled with an increase in spending at national, state and local levels for fire-prevention measures. The US Forest Service is now spending more than 50% of its budget on firefighting alone, which is seriously undercutting its ability to conduct more cost-effective thinning of forests that can diminish a fire’s intensity and speed.

    More money is also needed for educational outreach to those inhabiting fire zones – dubbed the wildland-urban interface – to ensure that their dwellings are more fire safe and defensible. This investment is particularly imperative in California, where more than two million people live in these zones, putting themselves directly in the path this new fire regime.

    Always follow the money.

    The link also mentions that increase in fires in the West of the US, you think maybe the 4 year drought might have just a little something to do with this? This winter we are getting soaked, thank God, let’s see what the fire situation is like next summer.

    I bet the same corollary could be made with farmers, whatever complaints they have, nothing some more federal subsidies won’t cure.

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  11. stogy

    These are fair points, Rich. And I accept that there is always a money trail. It’s curious though that the massive amounts of money paid to organizations that misrepresent the science is seldom brought up by those who are saying “the scientists are falsifying the data so they can get their hands on fat grants”, when they actually see very little of that money (many universities pocket a large proportion of it). And then there are the politicians who are deeply concerned about climate change, who suddenly start singing a different song once they get a nice donation from fossil fuel lobbyist.

    But yeah, there isn’t a lot to be gained by arguing against someone who refuses to read any of the actual science, and relies on people such as Anthony Watts and Marc Morano for their information.

    Anyway, if you are interested, here are a couple more takedowns of David Rose hack job yesterday:

    http://nocommentdiary.com/2017/02/07/heres-why-the-climategate-2-scandal-is-bunk/

    http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.jp/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?spref=tw

    The last one is by a scientist who worked for three-and-a-half years on the Karl et al paper in question:

    The ‘whistle blower’ is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA’s process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable

    The rest of the piece dissects the article point by point.

     

    Thumb up 0

  12. stogy

    Just to clarify one point:

    The last one is by a scientist who worked for three-and-a-half years on the Karl et al paper in question:

    Peter Thorne is a co-author. He worked on the data for the paper, but left prior to the actual paper’s authorship.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Hal_10000

    One important point.  Alex’s post and a lot of anti-AGW talking points center around the adjustments made to raw temperature data. Judith Curry, a climate skeptic, has done a lot of work  explaining what this is all about.  The gripping hand is that the trend is the same whether you adjust the data or not.  All the adjustments do is make it a bit smoother.

    Thumb up 1

  14. AlexInCT *

    Ah. Still haven’t looked at the actual science, eh?

    I am fairly certain that have forgotten more about science than you have ever learned about it, Stogy. I am always flabbergasted that it is the people with least amount of any kind of real scientific education that are always the ones lecturing those that actually do have it, and with the most amount of condescension you could muster.

    One important point.  Alex’s post and a lot of anti-AGW talking points center around the adjustments made to raw temperature data.

    Actually no, Hal: my post are about the fact that this stuff is all nonsense. Yes, they conveniently “lost” the base data they supposedly had to adjust, and the the only reason for that was so nobody could call them on always adjusting it in favor of the narrative. But the most ridiculous thing about these people is that they are centering their entire premise around levels of precision that simply were never available until well after the year 2000, but we are to believe they have temperature records from before then that provide the same level of accuracy. When you call them on that they talk about a trend in change measured in hundredths of a degree when the margin of error in what they are doing is measured in degrees. People that understand science would immediately see that these morons really have no argument to make under conditions like that. A guess is far more likely to be accurate than anything these people are producing.

    Thumb up 0

  15. stogy

    I am fairly certain that have forgotten more about science than you have ever learned about it, Stogy. I am always flabbergasted that it is the people with least amount of any kind of real scientific education that are always the ones lecturing those that actually do have it, and with the most amount of condescension you could muster.

    In our previous discussions on climate change, you failed to understand the carbon cycle (junior high school level) and said that climate change theory violated the second law of thermodynamics (a standard denialist site talking point), indicating that you understood neither climate change nor one of the most basic tenets of physics. Climate science is a hobby of mine (yes, I don’t get out much) and I don’t pretend to know as much as the proper scientists working in the field, I read a lot – including the same discredited tripe on fake sceptic sites. But I read the proper science too.

    Actually no, Hal: my post are about the fact that this stuff is all nonsense. Yes, they conveniently “lost” the base data they supposedly had to adjust

    You obviously haven’t not not clicked on  yet another link I posted above, from someone who actually worked on the research, did you? They didn’t lose any base data. Like, none. It’s even available for you to examine if you like.

    Thumb up 1