Whistleblower exposes climate data manipulation at NOAA


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The corruption of climate science: A retired award-winning climate scientist has revealed that the publication of a NOAA paper that claimed the pause in global warming since 1998 did not exist was rushed into publication so that it would appear just prior to the Paris climate conference in 2015.

Worse, the paper’s authors disregarded NOAA’s rules for peer review, destroyed their raw data so that no one could check their results, and purposely threw out data that raised questions about their conclusions.

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.

Read the whole article. It is remarkably detailed for a modern newspaper story, delving carefully into the kind of details that must be looked at to truly understand the corruption of science that has taken place in government agencies like NOAA and NASA.

Does this story prove that human-caused global warming is not happening? Of course not. What it does show is that there is fraud going on, and that much of the science press releases issued by these agencies cannot be trusted.

4 comments

  • LocalFluff

    I haven’t seen anything about this revealed fraud in German news media, or anti-journalistic hateful communist party propaganda that it actually is. Merkel has caused enormous poverty and debt with an anti-energy policy that has bankrupted innumerable companies and many families in order to replace power plants with worthless Winter-Solar and medieval windmill propaganda plants that cost more to operate than to burn down. The masses of unemployed should now note that this was done because of a deliberate lie. The Eastern Germans remember well this kind of Marxism, with some authoritarian lying that one and only one policy is scientifically proven and that the people therefor must have no say about their private lives or economies. DDR-Merkel is now, even before this scandal, suddenly losing badly against the SPD, other communist party’s candidate, ahead of the election in October. And the CSU, the Communist Soviet Union party in Bavaria, today seems to have wholeheartedly given all their support to Merkel’s warmongering communist islamic climate doomsday dictates and her continuation as secretary general of the Politbüro. That doesn’t leave many choices for the German voter.

  • Alex

    @Capitalisic LocalFluff: Your desription of reality in Germany fits well to reality. However, there is an alternativ, the party is called AfD (Alternative für Deutschland).

  • Edward

    Robert wrote: “Does this story prove that human-caused global warming is not happening? Of course not.

    It does, however, prove that the scientists are having a difficult time demonstrating that global warming is happening as well as their historic difficulty in demonstrating that human activity, rather than the end of the Little Ice Age, has any significant relevance to the possible warming.* If they were not having such a difficult time, they wouldn’t have had to fudge data, and there would have already been plenty of corroborating data and evidence that would make the Pausebuster paper much less relevant.

    From the article: “was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

    “Was timed to influence.” This shows political intent.

    From the article: “Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science.

    Fudging and “lost” data are not needed when the data supports the intended conclusion, the bias of the researcher. However, when the desired conclusion is not supported by the data, Science has set down rules that the data be kept so that subsequent researchers can determine the reality.

    From the article: “Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’ The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

    Funny how something similar happened with the data that was used to create the Hockey Stick graph that has been so widely used to “prove” AGW. It is why the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is not so respected anymore. It looks like NOAA’s climatologists also deserve less respect than they have received in the past.

    From the article: “NOAA not only failed [to maintain the integrity of the data], but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data.

    Again showing that politics rather than science are the primary motivator at NOAA. Unfortunately, this is where Trump wants to put his faith in our climate research.

    It is this kind of poor science that makes skeptics so skeptical, and should make everyone skeptical. Instead, too many people rely upon the movie made by a greedy politician who told many half truths and some lies, as verified by the British courts.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

    From the article: “Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’

    The claim that there is a consensus of 97% of scientists about global warming, but the paper making that claim (Cook, et. al.) notes in its abstract that 66.4% (and another 0.3%) of scientists did not agree with the “consensus” — in addition to the 0.7% who outright rejected the AGW argument.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf;jsessionid=D5E5F92C05095ED25200D0A9F73B54C6.ip-10-40-1-105
    We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

    Nothing in the paper suggests that even a single scientist thought that climate change was urgent or even should be addressed.

    It is kind of like the “four out of five dentists surveyed” way to lie with statistics that is described in the book “How to Lie With Statistics.”

    Somehow, 32.6% became the lying statistic of 97%. Yet another fudged data point, widely used to bias policy makers and the general public into believing something that is not true.

    There are some who show that even the 32.6% figure was based upon expectation bias, seeing in the data what the researcher wants to see.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#3cd2fd5a5909
    After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

    It has to be embarrassing to the world of climatology when mere journalists, untrained in the science of science, are able to see through to the bias of a scientific paper written by supposedly Real scientists.

    Real science does not seem to be the bailiwick of very many “respected” climate scientists. Real science would convince many, most, or all of the skeptics.

    * I say “possible warming” because with the skeptical scientists pointing out problems with historical data, such as heat islands, and the true-believer climatologists pointing out problems resulting in historical data being modified, it is clear that much, most, or all of the temperature data that we have now is considered by many, most, or all scientists to be unreliable. That is the only real consensus that I see in this debate.

    It is a shame, too, because it pretty much completely destroys all argument, since we can no longer trust any data for us to determine what is going on or what has already gone on.

  • Nicholas PAizis

    Edward

    Thank you for your excellent comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *