"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."

"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."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manip...

The oligarchy want to create a $7 trillion dollar per annum market to play their game, by taxing all people on the Earth the free air they breathe.

Soon we'll have a methane meter attached to our arses so they can tax our farts as well.

Yes I always rely on "science" published in the Daily Mail



http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/more-fake-news-in-the-mail-on-sunday...

An attack by the ‘The Mail on Sunday’ on the accuracy and integrity of a recent paper on global warming is based on inaccurate and misleading claims, including a fake graph.

The article by David Rose appears in the 5 February issue of the newspaper under the headline ‘Exposed: How world leaders were duped over global warming’. The article was first published on the newspaper’s website on 4 February.

The claim that global warming stopped in 1998 became a key talking point for ‘sceptics’ in 2006 after ‘The Sunday Telegraph’ published an article by the late Dr Bob Carter, a geologist based in New Zealand.

Although global temperature records compiled by the UK Met Office (TXT), NOAA (CSV) and NASA (TXT) show that 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998, many climate change ‘sceptics’ have continued to falsely assert that there has been no real warming over the past 18 years.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 11:52am:



Only because you can't explain how "Bates is wrong"

What happened to John Taverner? He actually knew stuff!

Quote:


The story comes from a climate denier organisation, it smells like fake news it looks like fake news and many of the statements made are known to be incorrect.

Fake News story.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:


Quote:


In the report being criticised the finding was that land based data didn't contribute much ?

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:



I notice you didn't address the central issue.

I have already quoted Snopes; here is factcheck

"Several studies have noted that “ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data” and that buoy data are “more accurate,” the researchers write. Since buoys have increased in use over time and ships have decreased in use, there is a “time-dependent bias” in the global ocean temperature record, they explained."

It begs the question why adjust the buoy data for a "cooling bias"?

Again, they don't query that the models used were not verified.

Again, the London School of Economics makes no claim about the models used. It does however write about an astrophysicist not being a climate scientist. Bob Ward is not a climate scientist either but feels he can comment on climate science.