Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday February 06 2017, @05:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-need-a-full-copy-of-production-for-testing dept.

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

More details can be found in his own words here:

They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday February 06 2017, @10:16PM

    by NewNic (6420) on Monday February 06 2017, @10:16PM (#463730) Journal

    With respect to lead in the environment, I find it suspicious that its always harmless when there is no alternative technology and then when one comes along all of a sudden, why who ever wouldda guessed its bad for you and lets use a new replacement.

    Your assertion is that lead is harmless?

    No, what happens is that people become aware of the harm from a certain chemical in the environment, then people develop alternative technologies, then the cost of those alternatives drops to the point that they are economically viable and finally, as a society, we eliminate the harmful chemical.

    What's so hard to understand? Or do you have a problem with people improving society for profit?

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @10:26PM (#463739)

    I think you and possibly others are confusing me with the original AC claiming

    The guy trying to call attention to lead gas was derided by the powers that be; he was treated as a lunatic.

    You can debate

    people become aware of the harm from a certain chemical in the environment

    with AC all you want, seeing as you two are in direct opposition.

    I personally find it suspicious that grassroots movements come after industrial chemistry advancements. Like a lot of conspiracy theories about Freon, which frankly probably are true, that the patents were running out so time to make it illegal one way or the other. Regardless of the scientific facts I suspect certain political movements become very well funded resulting in success when its industrially profitable for those "grass roots" to be fertilized. This doesn't sound unusually unrealistic based on non-scientific political behavior, when there's something political having nothing to do with chemistry.