Home Science and Technology The Top Climate Scientist who Exposed NOAA as Frauds

The Top Climate Scientist who Exposed NOAA as Frauds

by

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.

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.”

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used 'unverified' data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures
The ‘unstable’ land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temp data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured above is one in Montana). However, the software they used to process the figures was found to be bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data was merged with aforementioned unreliable sea surface temps.

The ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys. But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is warmer. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was in fact no ‘pause’.

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:

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers, while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have now locked me out of my account. And most recently, the CCDH stripped the website of its ability to advertise with Google.

So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email. And also consider becoming a Patron or donating via Paypal (button located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile). The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

Any way you can, help me spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Continue reading on Strategic-Culture

You may also like

Leave a Comment