NOAA Whistleblower Exposes Climate Data Fraud and Manipulation

[Thursday]

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.



Read more: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on FacebookWorld leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

 

[Dave-W]

Yeah - The guys next door at the National Weather Service have had a pretty rough time of it the last couple of years. NWS is the line office of NOAA that tracks weather and climate. There was a lot of ideologic pressure from the past 2 administrations (Bush Jr and Obama) to skew those numbers. Bush wanted it to show no global warming, and Obama wanted it overstated.

I wish the guys at the top would leave it be and just let the scientists and techies just report the facts as they are without spin.

 

[Aryeh]

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.



Read more: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on FacebookWorld leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

Duh?

Luckily for most of us that have been saying this, we have strong enough intellectual constitution to be patient enough to let the entirety of the fiasco collapse before opponents AND proponents alike.

 

[Aryeh]

Yeah - The guys next door at the National Weather Service have had a pretty rough time of it the last couple of years. NWS is the line office of NOAA that tracks weather and climate. There was a lot of ideologic pressure from the past 2 administrations (Bush Jr and Obama) to skew those numbers. Bush wanted it to show no global warming, and Obama wanted it overstated.

I wish the guys at the top would leave it be and just let the scientists and techies just report the facts as they are without spin.

You cannot report a no biased skew when an entity is giving you the grant money to do the research.

If a team of scientists get $17,000,000 to study the affects of global warming, that money is inclusive - salaries, supplies, and resources. In addition, the percentile makeup from grant and loan money dictates the point of the research, and transparency of results.

Usually, universities and scientific entities break down like this: about 80% of money is PRIVATE INDUSTRY, about 15% is government, and a marginal percent is public money. Usually, private and government allocations are the same category.

That means if scientists are thrown $17,000,000, and the results allowed to be disclosed is nothing but common sense (studies show drinking coffee can make you restless,) the public gets just that. Opacity. The rest of the research is NOT for public consumption.

The fact that the little bit of information scientists DO tell civilians is filled with lies and misinformation is a commentary on what academia thinks of the layperson population.

 

[Dave-W]

Except NOAA scientists are funded 100% from the national budget.

I work for NOAA.

 

[Aryeh]

Except NOAA scientists are funded 100% from the national budget.

I work for NOAA.

Of course it is 100% funded by the government - it is a national entity. (Although, that 100% figure isnt quite precise, either.) But, it is not a worldwide entity, nor is it a private scientific entity employing reputable, published scientists.

It still doesn't mean that their government funding allows them transparency afforded to civilians.

Quite the contrary, in fact. And, this is partly accomplished by clearance and compartementalization.

Government funds still contain a very clear agenda that would be spelled out in relation to the target of research. Government funding does not constitute truth, or transparency - even for those who work within the umbrella. Often times, this is made painfully aware to those inside, and often times this causes problems for all sides (vis-a-vis whistleblowers.)

 

[Angel Wings 1288]

There's a reason why a scientist would fabricate data to make climate change look worse than it really is: it makes his job look more important. If everyone is made to believe the world is on fire, then climate scientists would suddenly become the most important type of scientist, since their data could help "save the world." Basically, it's an ego thrills thing.

 

[SolomonVII]

Climate change science is one of the more major industries of the last twenty years.
This is where all the money is.
Why wouldn't some of the people involved in it be subject to the same corruption that arises wherever the money goes?

 

[The Barbarian]

Except NOAA scientists are funded 100% from the national budget.

I work for NOAA.

You're clouding the argument with facts, and interfering with "alternative facts."

 

[The Barbarian]

Climate change science is one of the more major industries of the last twenty years.

Sounds pretty unlikely. You have some numbers to show us?

This is where all the money is.

Not too many scientists were willing to take it:

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.


Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

...

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.


The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Why wouldn't some of the people involved in it be subject to the same corruption that arises wherever the money goes?

What's surprising is how few takers they got. Of course, there were a few who were willing to sell their integrity...

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.


Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.


According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.


The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules.


Lobbyist dubbed Dr Evil behind front groups attacking Obama power rules
Read more

Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun.

As is common among Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, Soon is not on a salary. He receives his compensation from outside grant money, said Christine Pulliam, a spokeswoman for the Center for Astrophysics.


...


The Center for Astrophysics does not require scientists to disclose their funding sources. But Pulliam acknowleged that Soon had failed to meet disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research. “Soon should have followed those policies,” she said.
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

 

[SolomonVII]

The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future


This advantage means liberal groups far outspend conservative ones. On immigration, the 117 progressive groups identified by Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Laksin have 22 times the funding of the nine conservative groups. On environmental issues, the count is 553 liberal groups against 32 conservative ones, and the left has 462 times the funding of the right. A broad range of liberal groups thrive not because they have significant popular support, but because their big-donor funding stream is so massive and reliable.


http://www.youngcons.com/the-difference-between-the-koch-and-clinton-foundations/