Update on NOAA Temp Scandal: ‘How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth’
By DAVID ROSE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.
A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.
The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.
The Paris Agreement, a landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed
It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House of Representatives’ science committee, is renewing demands for documents about the controversial paper, which was produced by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the world’s leading source of climate data.
In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.
Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.
That is not the end of it. Taxpayers also face an additional hefty contribution to an annual £80 billion in ‘climate aid’ from advanced countries to the developing world. That is on top of our already gargantuan aid budget. Green levies and taxes already cost the average household more than £150 a year.
The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.…
New York Times Manipulates NOAA’s Climate Science Scandal
If you were only to read the New York Times’ latest article on the most recent Climate Change scandal first reported by the Mail and the Daily Mail, you would never know that there was any scandal to speak of in the first place.
Headline: “No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say.” Well, not all researchers. The background of the data manipulation story revolves around accusations made by David Bates, a recently retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Among his several accusations is that NOAA “rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris agreement on climate change,” a paper which would have been welcomed with open arms by the Obama administration. On February 4, Bates wrote a lengthy blog post at his website detailing the accusations. Here is a brief list of some of the charges:
1. Climate scientist, Tom Karl, failed to archive the land temperature data set and thus also failed to “follow the policy of his own Agency [and] the guidelines in Science magazine for dataset archival and documentation.”
2. The authors also chose to “use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95%,” and according to Bates, the authors failed to give a justification for this when pressed.
3. Karl routinely “had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Bates adds, “[a] NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming.”
4. Experimental datasets were used that were not run through operational readiness review (ORR) and were not archived.
To sum up, the “data manipulation,” as characterize by the Mail, consisted in not following proper protocols, selecting certain data sets which had not been properly analyzed, and manipulating scientific methodology with a political and not purely scientific end.…
Christopher Booker: ‘Will Trump & GOP bring an end to the costliest scare story ever known?’
Booker weighs in on the latest NOAA scandal:
Two years ago last week, I wrote a column given the provocative heading “The fiddling of temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. It was the second of two articles which attracted a record 42,000 comments from all over the world, reporting on the discovery by expert bloggers in half a dozen countries – led in Britain by Paul Homewood on his site “Not a lot of people know that” – that something very odd appeared to have been done to the official land surface temperature records on which, more than anything else, the entire alarm over man-made global warming has rested.
These derive from the record known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), run by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). By comparing archived data with that now being published, the bloggers claimed to have discovered that temperature records all over the world had, seemingly, been systematically “adjusted” to show older temperatures lower than those originally measured and more recent temperatures higher than those recorded: thus conveying the notion that the world is warming significantly more than the actual data justified.
This scandal has now surfaced again with accusations made by Dr John Bates, a recently retired senior scientist at the NOAA, against his former boss , Tom Karl. Bates alleges that an NOAA paper written before the historic climate conference in Paris in 2015 breached its own rules and was based on misleading and unverified data. That, to many, looks like the paper was designed to stoke up hysteria over global warming in the run-up to the conference.
2015 saw a major climate conference in Paris Credit: Benoit Tessier/Reuters
The warmist lobby had no greater concern at that time than the so-called “pause”: the evidence that, for nearly 20 years, the trend in global temperatures had been failing to rise as all the official computer models had predicted it should.
Karl’s paper won worldwide publicity by purporting to show that there had, in fact, been no “pause”, and that both land and sea temperatures had continued to rise more than was previously accepted.
What Dr Bates now claims is that, in defiance of rules he himself drew up and over his (Bates’s) private objections, Karl’s paper had again been based on “adjustments” that the scientific evidence didn’t justify.
The paper, widely quoted by …
Time To Repeal Energy Star, The EPA’s Brand Of Fake ‘Energy Efficiency’
Guest Post by Conor Coughlin
The EPA owns the ENERGY STAR brand which is mandated for use by government in the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland and the European Union, but not in communist China where the bulk of ENERGY STAR’s products are produced.
EPA claims their ‘certified’ brand of energy efficiency saves $23 billion annually for partners, yet can’t even convince their communist cronies to mandate the use of their cutting-edge products. It’s almost like the commies know that EPA’s claims are complete BS!
Trillion dollar markets are at stake! Repealing the ENERGY STAR mandate should be the highest priority for every American concerned about widespread government corruption and seeking honest, accountable government. There is no Nation Standard in the US for the measurement and verification of electrical energy-savings in technologies, leaving Americans in dark about what exactly are large multi-national corporations and foreign governments buying from our EPA?
If foreign governments are purchasing ENERGY STAR products from EPA, shouldn’t American citizens know the terms of those contracts? Don’t we own the EPA? Why wouldn’t the initial investment costs and rate of return on those multi-billion dollar investments in ENERGY STAR be of interest to citizens in the US and foreign countries? Do foreign citizens get to know what’s in those contracts?
Our mainstream media Fake News outlets love to talk about the threats posed by Global Warming, but never discuss the failures of Cap & Trade policies and their pathetic carbon trading markets which are in total collapse. Just this week former GOP leaders proposed a carbon tax starting at $40 per ton, despite the fact California’s last carbon credit auction with a minimum bid price of $12.73 per ton failed to move even one third of the credits available. Are these so-called conservative leaders really so clueless?
ENERGY STAR is arguably the most corrupt scientific research program since the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment conducted on unsuspecting citizens from 1932 to 1972. There was no moral or ethical justification for those sick experiments back then, and the “for the greater good of science” excuse should not be accepted today.
Taxpayers have spent around $100 billion on scientific research and producing technical reports for EPA, yet the vast majority of Americans have no idea that ENERGY STAR brand has become a State Owned Enterprise like Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae. Just as crooked bankers made
Legendary Motor Developer Calls Electric Cars An ‘Environmental Fraud…Dangerous False Path’
Legendary Motor Developer Calls Electric Cars An “Environmental Fraud” …”Dangerous False Path”!
Professor Friedrich Indra has been retired since 2005 and is considered to be one of the world’s leading engine developers. The 76-year old used to work for Audi and General Motors.
Electric mobility is an environmental fraud, says world leading expert in engine technology. Image: Tesla
“Doesn’t solve single environmental problem”
In a recent interview with the online FOCUS news magazine he raised a lot of eyebrows by stating that he thinks electric mobility is a “dangerous false path”, claiming that the electric car “does not solve a single environmental problem” and that it “contributes nothing to climate protection”.
Indra calls the claims that electric cars are CO2-free “absurd”.
Fake efficiency
Citing an earlier stiudy by a Professor Spicha, Indra says that the well-to-wheel-CO2 of an electric car in Germany is in fact 1.6 times worse than the conventional internal combustion engine. The CO2 perforamnce of an electric car in China is even four to five times worse when it comes to consumption, and that does not mention the huge energy quantities needed for manufacturing the batteries that electric cars need, which would be enough to power a conventional automobile 30,000 kilometers, he told FOCUS.
Electric cars also have the problems of recycling the batteries, as they are a long way from being fully recyclable.
According to Indra, internal combustion engines have made “very impressive progress“, saying: “The motors are continuously getting more powerful and more fuel efficient.” The engine expert believes that the final solution is “CO2-neutral synthetic fuels. They need as much CO2 for for their manufacture as emitted when in operation.”
The “second greatest environmental fraud”
When it comes to hybrid automobiles, Indra opinion is harsh, calling the plug-in-hybrids “the second greatest environmental fraud because the determination of the fuel consumption does not even include the power that was previously needed to charge up the car.” This is how “sportscars using the technology come up with perverse values like 3.1 liters consumption per 100 km [80 mpg]”.
In the interview Indra rails against what he calls “widespread hatred against internal combustion engines” among the media and policymakers, who he says exploited the VW emissions test cheating affair to spread more hate against the internal combustion engines. He thinks
French Socialist Presidential Candidate Offers Asylum To US Climate Scientists
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Leading French Presidential Candidate Emmanuel Macron has invited the entire US climate science community to relocate to France.
Climate scientists wary of Trump: Please come to France, says presidental hopeful
By Martin Enserink Feb. 10, 2017 , 8:15 AM
The mediagenic wunderkind of French presidential politics has a message for U.S. scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs working on climate change and worrying about their future under President Donald Trump: Come to France.
In a video posted to his Facebook and Twitter accounts late last night (and hashtagged #ScienceMarch), Emmanuel Macron renewed his commitment to fighting global warming and extended a warm welcome: “We want people working on climate change, energy, renewables, and new technologies. France is your nation.”
He may well get an opportunity to make good on his promise. Polls released this week suggest that Macron, the founder of a new center-left party who is campaigning on environmental protection, has soared past two more traditional candidates and is likely to face Marine Le Pen, the leader of the extreme-right National Front, in the 7 May runoffs. One poll says he’d defeat her with 63% of the votes.
For most scientists, moving to France is easier said than done, says Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. “It’s not as if you can just pick up a NASA climate satellite and just reassign it to France,” Halpern says. “But politicians the world over now recognize that science is a global endeavor, and seem increasingly eager to ensure that it is not disrupted by political interference. Gag orders and immigration bans do make it more challenging for scientists to do their work.”
…