Thursday, October 28, 2021
Home Middle Column New York Times Manipulates NOAA’s Climate Science Scandal

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.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Is California Experiencing More “Weather Whiplash”?

But the jury, viewing the observations, have released a definitive ruling on whether precipitation whiplash is increasing during the past 120 years in California: ...

Actress Joanna Lumley Calls For Rationing and Social Climate Credits

Joanna Lumley, whose glamorous high flying lifestyle includes long holidays in Bhutan, the Swiss Alps, and a trip on the Trans Siberian Railway, wants...

‘They Need To Breed Less’: The Darkness Of Climate Zealotry

If this disregard for our very humanity goes unchallenged, we could be in for some dark times indeed.  Watch COP26 at Glasgow for trends.