Whistleblower reports data tampering at NOAA

By |2017-02-07T13:17:31+00:00February 7th, 2017|Climate|15 Comments

Independent scientists have long suspected government researchers at NASA and NOAA have been fiddling with temperature data to exaggerate global warming.

It appears they’re making “assumptions” and “adjusting” the data to suit their narrative; namely cooling the past and warming the present.

Confirmation of this data tampering may now be at hand.

The Daily Mail reports that a “whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown them irrefutable evidence that an important paper that played an influential role in the Paris agreement was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

Real world measurements have long shown there has been no meaningful advance in global warming since 1998. Warming campaigners have been trying desperately to explain away this global warming “pause.”

Dr. Judith Curry reports that among the suspect practices in use are “adjusting” reliable ocean buoy data to conform to unreliable data from passing ships, altering the temperature reported by land-based weather stations, and assuming temperatures where no thermometers exist at all. NOAA rushed out a controversial temperature report timed to influence world leaders at the UN’s Paris climate summit.

The Mail reports, “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 learned 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.’”

CFACT’s Marc Morano exposed NOAA’s “Pausebuster” report in 2015.

Research continually shows the climate computer models the entire global warming campaign is predicated upon to be terribly unreliable.

In science, researchers adjust their conclusions to fit the data. They must never adjust the data to fit a preferred conclusion – no matter how much taxpayer funding hinges on that conclusion.

President Trump should order a full independent audit of NASA and NOAA’s climate data and practices.

Sound policy decisions about the climate cannot be made if we cannot trust the scientific data we rely upon.


  1. Immortal600 February 7, 2017 at 7:52 PM

    Fraudulent AGW data? Figures.

    • Dano2 February 7, 2017 at 9:29 PM

      Figures denialists would be duped by the story (willingly?)



  2. Dano2 February 7, 2017 at 9:08 PM

    Actually, David Rose lied about the “whistleblower”.

    How do we know David Rose lied about the “whistleblower”? Because the “whistleblower”? repudiated what David Rose dishonestly reported (SHOCKER):

    That’s right: the scientist David Rose lied about – John Bates – so David Rose could write a lying, refuted screed stated that there was no data manipulation.

    Bates … specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.

    “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper …”

    David Rose lied. There was no data manipulation.

    Not that it matters to denialists, Trumpkins, or the disinformation industry, but still. Nor will anyone retract their headline, right CFACT?




    • adam_s_0625 February 7, 2017 at 11:13 PM

      I guess Dano missed / redacted Bates other comments:

      Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

      Dano has a history of redacting inconvenient info.

      • Dano2 February 8, 2017 at 10:03 AM

        I pre-bunked this already in the links. Bates had absolutely no idea what Karl did or didn’t do (well, besides demote Bates) because Bates was not part of any process, ever. Bates wasn’t in any room for any process or any meeting. Ever.



        • adam_s_0625 February 8, 2017 at 11:17 AM

          Bates account is robust. Karl did not follow the rules for archiving. Some co-authors of K15 disagreed with Karl’s approach. It certainly warrants review. But, we doubt Dano will agree, since he was in the room for all the meetings.

          • Dano2 February 8, 2017 at 11:42 AM

            Again, you are already refuted. Repeating it won’t make it true.



            • adam_s_0625 February 8, 2017 at 3:27 PM

              Understand, Dano, I was not talking TO you. I was talking ABOUT you … to more open-minded individuals. We have long known your position. It’s one of activism and obstruction, not science. Your opinions no longer matter and your comments are ignored. Well, except to use as an example of intolerance. You have made yourself irrelevent in the discussion of science.

              Oh, best!

              • Dano2 February 8, 2017 at 5:37 PM

                Here’s another interview that reveals you are continuing to be – sadly – in error, duped (willingly?) into believing yet another David Rose lie:

                Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that …Karl didn’t follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

                However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

                “It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”[emphases added]

                Shucky darns for denialists.



                • adam_s_0625 February 8, 2017 at 6:04 PM
                  • Dano2 February 8, 2017 at 6:11 PM

                    You have nothing. You are refuted. Run along now, lad.



  3. MJA5 February 12, 2017 at 4:58 PM

    I don’t there’s much question about what happened to the pausebuster paper. Shoddy data compilation and cherry picking in order to arrive at the desired result before Paris. So ‘effing obvious. Kill it with fire.

    • Dano2 February 13, 2017 at 10:18 PM




      • MJA5 February 14, 2017 at 9:55 AM


        • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 2:05 PM

          You made up your assertions. You can’t show they are true.



Comments are closed.