The Panic Pushing Climate Alarmists Cannot Prevail

The Executive Suite at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in darkness:  Dr. John Bates, Principal Scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina recently retired and tossed a couple of well-aimed truth grenades at the bowels of the bureau and results are not pretty.

Trending: Iran Just Blamed The United States for Something HORRENDOUS

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, said it will review Bates allegations researchers rushed a study claiming the world was warming faster than previously published to panic policymakers.  The data actually confirm there has been a decline for 18 years where NOAA claims there has been a significant increase for the last 15 years.

NOAA is charged with providing peer-reviewed data to the American public and stands behind its world-class scientists,” the NOAA spokesman said, but  “peers” are not supposed to be scientists working for the bureau.

Dr. Bates documented flaws with the “Karl Study” after author Tom Karl said it had not been archived in accordance with NOAA policy. “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,” Bates noted in the blog “Climate Etc.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Bates claims NOAA scientists made a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of global warming to eliminate the “pause” in temperature rise since 1998, and made “decisions and that maximized warming…” in advance of a major United Nations climate summit in Paris, France.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, welcomed Bates’ public statements, arguing it bolstered a controversial investigation his committee launched into the Karl paper after it was published in 2015.

Some in the science community defended the Karl study. The American Geophysical Union, AGU, commented, “…these reports do not change our fundamental understanding of climate change,” and “the main results of that study have since been independently replicated by later work.”

University of California-Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather recently co-authored a paper supporting the Karl study claiming it was more accurate than the NOAA data it replaced.

Hausfather defended the data in the Karl study, adding it “strongly suggests that NOAA got it right and that we have been underestimating ocean warming in recent years.”

Hausfather also noted the data in the Karl study was available on “NOAA’s FTP file site in June 2015, but admitted “it would have been nice for them to publish their full analysis code online as well as the data.”  This is a critical point as it is where manipulation is done as in Michael Mann’s programming “trick” documented in the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email scandal.

The Irish Climate Analysis and Research Unit responded to Bates’ accusations in a blog post saying Bates’s claims are a “misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred,” but failed to cite any basis for their defense of the study.

Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of the journal SCIENCE, stood behind the Karl study, which they published in June 2015 saying the Karl study data “were deposited and are readily accessible according to our policy.”  This is patently hollow as it does not confirm anything.  Not everyone was convinced by the Karl study’s defenders.

“It is not good enough to say that one believes the researchers would probably have released their computer code if they were asked for it, or to say the data was archived because it was available on an ftp site, or that procedures put in place were bypassed because they were inconvenient,” wrote Dr. David Whitehouse, Science Editor at the Global Warming Policy Forum.

Where billions of Dollars in grants, bureaus, staff and project money are dependent on NOAA and other such bureaus keeping the level of panic high and the issue in the public eye the Bates criticisms are a serious blow and crack in the chalice of the holy grail of global warming.  The nation has already spent $1 trillion on this sham and much more to come if the panic pushers prevail.

Adrian Vance

Adrian Vance is a writer and producer of educational films, filmstrips and audio programs with over 325 productions from script to screen. See a partial list of my credits at . And, have written for ten national magazines, been on the masthead of two as an Editor, done a dozen books and am an FCC licensed broadcaster with ten years of on-air experience in radio and television. See my blog, "The Two Minute Conservative" at where you will find over 3200 daily pieces, enough material to produce 25 novel length books.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.