NOAA report on global warming called into question, but reaffirmed by leaker, UC Berkeley study
The Daily Mail has exposed another bogus global warming report, this time a NOAA report rushed to publish to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, says the Mail. The motivation appears to be to influence President Obama and the British Prime Minister 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. This dominated headlines around the world and was cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, “unverified” data. Bates claims that the data was “never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process.”
Bates appears to have objected to the publication, but was 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.
Now Bates is being described as “retired” by the counterclaims, and how then-director of the National Centers for Environmental Information Thomas Karl, “constantly 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 rushed a study published in the journal Science before international climate negotiations.
Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview with AP that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, speaking at a hearing Tuesday, called on Science to retract the 2015 study and blasted NOAA for not being cooperative with his subpoenas. When the journal’s publisher Rush Holt, a physicist and former Democratic congressman, said the charges don’t support a retraction because the issue is more about data procedures than science, Smith, an attorney, interrupted him and insisted: “They falsified global warming data.”
A new study from the University of California, Berkeley looked at the same issue in a different way, and confirmed the Karl calculations.
“Not using their data we get the exact same results, both for the ocean record and for the land,” said Zeke Hausfather, lead author of the Berkeley study. He called Bates’ claims “all about procedural disagreements within NOAA that have very little bearing about our understanding about what’s happening to Earth’s climate.”
Marcia McNutt, who was editor of Science at the time the paper was published and is now president of the National Academy of Sciences, praised Bates for wanting to highlight the importance of data archiving, but said his criticisms have little to do with the main part of the paper and chastised the House for using issues of data archiving to try to discredit the 2015 study.
“The study has been reproduced independently of Karl et al—that’s the ultimate platinum test of whether a study is to be believed or not,” McNutt said. “And this study has passed.”