Is Global Warming Fake Science? Whistleblower says NOAA put politics before science to influence 2015 Paris Climate talks

NOAA needs to be more transparent and vocal than ever.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prematurely published a report continuing manipulated data in an effort to influence the Paris Climate Change talks, according to a whistleblower. Dr. John J. Bates told climate skeptic author, David Rose of the Daily Mail, that the world's leading source of climate data has published a flawed, and influential paper.

LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) -- The signs of global warming are everywhere. From bleached coral reefs, to melting ice caps and record temperatures, the planet is clearly heating up. The rate of warming is far beyond anything that occurs naturally, making it very difficult for natural selection to keep us. Species are going extinct at an accelerated rate. The threat to humans is substantial and while global warming might not render us extinct, it could result in tremendous global upheaval.

It is precisely the gravity of this situation that renders it mind boggling NOAA would release a flawed study prematurely to influence the 2015 Paris Climate talks. This is the accusation from Dr. John J. Bates, a retired scientist.

Dr. Bates was the former lead scientist at the National Climate Data Center in Asheville N.C. and said he was motivated by the criticism he received to his objections. He has gone on record alleging that scientists made a "blatant attempt to intensify the impact" of climate change and used unverified data to support their conclusion. Others suggest he is disgruntled.

Bates told the Daily Mail's David Rose that NOAA, the world's leading source of climate data, rushed to publish a paper on climate change to influence the Paris Climate talks in 2015. The paper revealed that a much discussed "global warming hiatus" or pause, did not actually occur and that the planet is warming even faster than previously believed. The report lent urgency to the talks.

The paper in question is available here.

Skeptics charge that global warming is an elaborate hoax designed to justify increased government control and regulation into business and private life. Under nightmare scenarios, population becomes controlled. Even in the status quo, economic development is stymied resulting in poverty around the world being exacerbated in the name of global warming.

The stakes are high. If global warming is happening, then the world is running out of time to avert a natural disaster of global proportions. In fact, some scientists think time is already up and we are now doomed. Conversely, if the skeptics are right and global warming isn't happening, then we are unjustly restricting economic development and we are giving world governments too much power to strip humans of rights and opportunity.

So, which is it? Is the planet warming? Or is NOAA engaged in a massive public deception?

The paper, which was released in 2015 appears to be solid, contrary to the claims made by Dr. Bates. Its lead author was Dr. Thomas Karl who has been subjected to Congressional questioning over his work. That questioning, conducted by Lamar Smith, (R-TX) head of the House Committee of Science, Space and Technology has been characterized as harassment. 

The work in the paper has been verified by other, independent researchers. Second, Dr. Bates was not involved in the work in question. This calls into question Bates' understanding of the work that went into the paper. There are also claims that the scientists who wrote the paper deliberately chose "low quality" data for their work. This has also been disproved. 

Additional verification here.

NOAA issued a statement to us on the topic: "NOAA is charged with providing peer-reviewed data to the American public and stands behind its world-class scientists. NOAA takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately."

It's a flat statement, and expected, but also unsatisfying. In fairness, NOAA administrators need time to perform their own investigation into what has happened.

The American Geophysical Union also issued a statement, saying that Dr. Bates' allegations were without merit.

For its part, Congress appears prepared to act. Lamar Smith stated that NOAA's lack of transparency and refusal to cooperate with Congressional inquiries into their work  is the product of an effort to promote a climate change agenda, "at the expense of scientific integrity."

A new round of questions is likely to occur as Smith is joined by fellow Republicans.

Regardless of all considerations, the following must be understood.

NOAA officials work for the government, and they do answer questions. But there is a fine line between investigation and witch hunting. NOAA administrators have worked to shield their scientists from government inquiry for this reason.

But what is needed now is absolute transparency. If it feels like harassment, too bad. Anyone who spends public money should be prepared to personally account for their expenditures. That includes scientists. There are common sense rules that could be enacted to protect them from genuine harassment. If it takes a day, or a week, or a little more to placate the skeptics in Congress, isn't that an investment in time worth making? One of the strings attached to government money is always government questions.

NOAA needs to recruit scientists and administrators who can go directly to the government and the public to make the case for climate change. They need their data to be of high quality and well verified. They need to be extremely transparent, even if it places burdens on some of the work they do.

A whistleblower like Dr. Bates cannot exist in an atmosphere of transparency. Unfortunately, his claims are now on the record and the damage is done. Few people will bother with the minute details of the study. Both sides will spin the data in their favor, and the public will be confused.

Nothing good gets done in a climate of confusion. So, if the planet is in crisis, this is a tragedy for all involved. We need NOAA to step up and answer this allegation courageously, and with complete transparency, like it or not. There is a skeptic in the Oval Office, and there are many at the heads of various influential committees. It's time for a shift in strategy. Charisma, digestible information, and above all truth are now the most important areas of focus for NOAA. They need to be prepared to go public with their work. Presently, most Americans have no clue what NOAA stands for or how much work they do, and that's a tragedy.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online