Whistleblower Links NOAA Study to UN Climate Treaty Agendas
Whistleblower Links NOAA Study to Climate Treaty Agendas
National Weather Service weather balloon, Albany N.Y. (Jim McKnight/AP)
Monday, 13 Feb 2017 08:44 AM
Former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Dr. John Bates has gone on record that the organization knowingly released “unverified” global temperature data in violation of rules on scientific integrity which Bates had received a 2014 U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal for devising.
Dr. Bates told the U.K.’s Daily Mail that a politically sensationalized 2015 NOAA “Karl study” published in the journal Science was blatantly intended to influence policy agendas favored by the Obama administration at the 2015 Paris climate conference.
The goal was to formalize a global treaty whereby advanced nations would commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel along with huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.
The Daily Mail reported that “His [Bates’] 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.”
The Karl report contradicted satellite and surface record evidence of flat global temperatures between 1998 and 2013 despite much-ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Instead, Karl claimed that the “pause” or “slowdown” in global warming never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising even faster than expected.
Bates accused his former boss, Thomas Karl, 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, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
Karl’s representation was based upon two unreliable sets of surface temperature data: one over land; the other over oceans. Bates specifically charges that those surface land temperature assessment models were known to have devastating software bugs.
The problems with NOAA’s ocean data adjustments