Saturday, February 11, 2017

Were World Leaders Duped Over Manipulated Global Warming Data?

Were World Leaders Duped Over Manipulated Global Warming Data?

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 reports David Rose. 1
A high-level whistle blower reported that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published a 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 had expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly buy politicians and policy makers. 1
But the whistle blower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with impeccable reputation, has shown irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading ‘unverified’ data. Also, it was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal process which Dr. Bates devised. 2
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 know as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal. 1
Anthony Watts reports, “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 of insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” 2

Pausebuster paper

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 Euros every year on new, climate related aid projects.
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr. Bates conducted a one-man investigation into the paper. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr. Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental run’ of a program that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records. 2
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
The other side of the story.
The Pausebuster research article made changes to historical sea surface temperature records, effectively doubling the warming trend over the period to 0.086 C per decade from 0.039 per decade. Some scientists were skeptical of the data and lawmakers were briefed on the study in summer 2015. 3
Continued below...

University of California, Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather recently co-authored a paper that found the Pausebuster study was more accurate than the NOAA data it replaced. Hausfather rebuffed criticisms of the temperature data used in the Pausebuster study, adding it ‘strongly suggests that NOAA got it right and that we have been underestimating ocean warming in recent years.’
Bates has put out a second blog taking each criticism on one-by-one. Critics have yet to address issues of the Pausebuster study authors violating NOAA policy on archiving.3
What needs to happen next to clarify the issues raised by John Bates asks Judith Curry. She observes, “We can look forward to more revelations from John Bates, including documentation, plus more detailed responses to some of the issues raised. 4
The House Science Committee has an enduring interest in this topic and oversight responsibility. NOAA should respond to the Committee’s request for documentation including emails. Numerous organizations don’t like the idea of scientists emails being open to public scrutiny. However, these are government employees and we are not talking about curiosity driven research here—at issue is a data set with major policy implications. 4
  1. David Rose, “Exposed: how world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data,”, February 4, 2017
  2. Anthony Watts, “Bombshell- NOAA whistle blower says Karl et al. ‘pausebuster’ paper was hyped, broke procedures,”, February 4, 2017
  3. Michael Bastasch, “House committee to ‘push ahead’ with investigation into alleged climate data manipulation at NOAA,”, February 6, 2017
  4. Judith Currey, “Response to critiques: climate scientists versus climate data,”, February 6, 2017

Jack Dini -- Bio and Archives | Click to view 2 CommentsJack Dini is author of Challenging Environmental Mythology.  He has also written for American Council on Science and Health, Environment & Climate News, and Hawaii Reporter.

No comments: