NOAA Is Hiring Outside Experts To Review ‘Pause-Busting’ Global Warming Study

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is bringing in outside experts to review a 2015 study accused of being rushed by scientists who wanted to influence U.S. and international policymakers.

“In the interest of maintaining the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and scientific integrity, we are in the process of engaging independent outside parties to review this matter,” a NOAA spokesman told Politico.

Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., accused NOAA scientists of putting a “thumb on the scale” to get results that debunked the so-called “pause” in global warming since 1998.

Bates said former NOAA scientist Tom Karl and his colleagues manipulated scientific guidelines and methodologies to rush out a 2015 study before it had gone through proper data quality checks in order to support President Barack Obama’s agenda and influence United Nations delegates meeting in Paris later that year.

Bates also accused Karl of keeping his “thumb on the scale” to “maximize warming and minimize documentation,” and suggested the study’s authors had made decisions to get a predetermined outcome.

NOAA officials previously told The Daily Caller News Foundation they would “review” Bates’s allegations, and confirmed to Politico Sunday they would bring in outside experts to examine Karl’s study. No further details were given.

“We will release further details as they are finalized,” the NOAA spokesman said.

House Republicans on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology used Bates’s whistleblowing to reinvigorate their investigation into the Karl study, but some scientists, science organizations and environmentalists have come to Karl’s defense.

Karl’s defenders argued the “pause-busting” study has stood up to scientific scrutiny and was independently verified in 2016. Karl’s former NOAA colleague, Thomas Peterson, said the study was expedited once agency officials “realized the significance it could have.”

Read rest…

Comments (15)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    NOAA won’t even let provide their boss , Congress , review their “adjusted ” data and we are expected they will hire outside experts to “review this matter” . Gosh let’s see who might be on that list … how about former IPCC Chair Pachuri or perhaps Michael Mann he has been through several reviews so should bring that all important experience when people question the validate of ones work . Isn’t that what peer review does ? Ah but what to do when the data becomes a scrambled egg and the dog ate the data ?
    How can anyone review NOAA’s work when the “computer broke” and at least two of the senior people involved at the top just happened to retire ?
    When the Science Committee comes out with a list of names they would accept
    then maybe but anything else would be a joke .
    Given the upfront plus or minus error tolerance of metering equipment and bottle
    samples on ships anyone that claims new records based on a fraction of 1 degree
    are complete bullshit artists .
    Don’t the quoted “NOAA officials ” have names ?
    Why would any elected officials commit $$ Billions in tax payer debt based on
    data hidden from scrutiny and even if believed with almost immeasurable
    change .
    Climate models have already proven to grossly over estimated any warming and in doing so shredded the manmade global warming hypothesis of climate Armageddon .
    When you can’t trust scientist you don’t need them .

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    The problem here is that almost the entire pool of “scientists” has been corrupted by taxpayer-funded grants that require a predetermined outcome. Whether these “scientists” comprehend or acknowledge this overwhelming bias is irrelevant. The whole thing is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

    Twenty years ago climatologists were redheaded stepchildren of the science world, often practicing what appeared to be alchemy projected by constantly changing computer models. Now they’re well-funded rock stars that seem to have multiplied like rabbits. Common sense dictates that few of them would ever consider or present data and hypothesis that didn’t support the political templates and agendas of the day. Science at its best.

  • Avatar

    JayPeeGibberish

    |

    So G, who pays for these scientists to corrupt the data and why do you think they do it? And do they get the same pay in Chile and Norway as they do in the US? Do astrophysicists make more than marine biologists or is it based on experience and/or number of studies corrupted? And how do they doctor all those satellite images?

    Sounds kinda of ridiculous to me. But, hey, evidence is evidence. Got any?

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    I shouldn’t have to explain to you that leftists always seek to use taxpayer funds (in this case grants) to pay for their schemes. A few well-placed billionaires like George Soros, Tom Steyer, et al, don’t hurt either. The political dynamic is the same wherever you go. Leftist politicians across the world have seen how this game is played, and they simply have the people they wish to subjugate pay for the bullet of their own execution.

    Here’s a challenge; propose any climate study grant, however well thought, showing the slightest hint that the hypothesis, data, or findings might not conform to the left’s climate change agenda/template and see how far you get. Then prepare to catch a 500 pound falling anvil…

    It sounds like you deny that climatologists have multiplied vastly and do way better these days. Nice. Good luck with that argument…

    Troll on Drew.

  • Avatar

    JayPeeGibberish

    |

    You don’t have to explain it G, you just have to provide evidence.
    So, I ask again – got any?

    • Avatar

      R. Johnson

      |

      TROLL ALERT first response of a scumbag troll is often a demand for evidence for facts that are common knowledge. No need too elaborate further.

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    Nice troll attempt Drew. I simply don’t accept your premise that there aren’t many more climatologists today than two decades ago. And I don’t accept your assertion that billions in taxpayer grant funds worldwide, directed by partisan politicians and unelected bureaucrats, don’t pay the bills. Your assertions defy logic and evidence, so YOU bear any burden of proof. Good luck.

  • Avatar

    JayPeeGibberish

    |

    You are projecting G.
    When did I say there aren’t more climatologists? And when did I say anything about who pays for their studies?
    However YOU said this in an earlier comment: “The problem here is that almost the entire pool of ‚Äúscientists‚Äù has been corrupted by taxpayer-funded grants that require a predetermined outcome.”

    I asked for evidence for this remarkable assertion and you have yet to provide any (not just you, BTW).

    • Avatar

      R. Johnson

      |

      TROLL ALERT Next move, invoking “when did I say” and “you said or wrote” admonition. Pure misdirection to control the discussion.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Again … Who is the NOAA spokesperson ? NOAA has a new boss that will hopefully
    respect the repeated requests of Congress for details . NOAA got away with the delay and obstruction when the Obama administration and bag men facilitated fluffed up temperature data but the cover is gone . Reproduce your results NOAA and provide all supporting calculations or your bull shit services no longer required .

  • Avatar

    JayPeeGibberish

    |

    Amber Amber Amber,
    The data, results, and methodology have ALWAYS been available as is always the case with ANY peer-reviewed scientific study in any scientific field.

    How can you possibly not know that?

    What the government wants is the records of private conversations and personal correspondence which are completely immaterial to the conclusions of the study (which, BTW, has been independently verified).

    And with that, I bid you adieu. Until we meet again, I hope all you sCeptics stay safe and play nice.

    Up, up and awaaaaaaaaay.

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Drewski
      Drewski
      Drewski

      We all know what you are.

      No need to keep proving it.

      • Avatar

        R. Johnson

        |

        You trolls are so easy to spot!! That’s right, take your twisted opinions elsewhere troll. No one here cares how much you love corrupt, dishonest bureaucrats. You don’t fool us for a minute, you have no clue what codes, algorithms or parameters NOAA used in their studies. On your next appearance everyone will ignore you, even that is more than you deserve.

    • Avatar

      R. Johnson

      |

      TROLL ALERT: The “the tisk, tisk” expression of disappointment or condemnation interwoven with patronization. Jokingly coupled with “ta ta, see you ignorant fools later”.

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    With open-minded and free-trade leaders now able to call climate hearings and possible trials we should look forward to the calling-out of activist judge shopping and other attempts to stack the deck with systematic fraud.

    In doing so we must get back to Constitutional law, Rules of Evidence, and established Rules of Decorum and Order. Leave the leftist climate circus back in the kangaroo court rooms of San Francisco, Berkeley, Madison, et al.

    The first thing we need is a return to proper Rules of Evidence:
    * Do not tolerate false representation of evidence.
    * Consider always investigator bias attached to evidence.
    * Demand established chain-of-evidence-custody rules.
    * DO NOT ACCEPT induced or coerced testimony. Many of these witnesses are well-paid by funding that is clearly designed to exclude results that do not support the political agenda of the grant makers. (inducement) Others who are may stray from those expectations are often subject to peer ridicule, loss of positions/titles, dropped funding, and overt threats.

    On its face, Democrat/leftist cases brought before the bench will often be presented with malice and deception. On its face these cases are without merit. The left’s go-to as always, will be to try to get judges to forget that, instead luring judges down rabbit holes with stacked volumes of corrupted “evidence”. When then questioned about any of it the left will fall back to their beloved claim of “settled science” – a term antithetical to science itself…

    If courtrooms were free to try the Climate Change left for corruption, fraud, and legal abuse under a Constitutional and well-ordered bench this would be a slam dunk.

Comments are closed