NOAA hiring outside experts to review ‘Pause-Busting’ global warming study

By |2017-02-14T12:58:49+00:00February 14th, 2017|Climate|54 Comments

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is bringing in outside experts to review a 2015 study accused of being rushed by scientists who wanted to influence U.S. and international policymakers.

“In the interest of maintaining the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and scientific integrity, we are in the process of engaging independent outside parties to review this matter,” a NOAA spokesman told Politico.

Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., accused NOAA scientists of putting a “thumb on the scale” to get results that debunked the so-called “pause” in global warming since 1998.

Bates said former NOAA scientist Tom Karl and his colleagues manipulated scientific guidelines and methodologies to rush out a 2015 study before it had gone through proper data quality checks in order to support President Barack Obama’s agenda and influence United Nations delegates meeting in Paris later that year.

Bates also accused Karl of keeping his “thumb on the scale” to “maximize warming and minimize documentation,” and suggested the study’s authors had made decisions to get a predetermined outcome.

NOAA officials previously told The Daily Caller News Foundation they would “review” Bates’s allegations, and confirmed to Politico Sunday they would bring in outside experts to examine Karl’s study. No further details were given.

“We will release further details as they are finalized,” the NOAA spokesman said.

House Republicans on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology used Bates’s whistleblowing to reinvigorate their investigation into the Karl study, but some scientists, science organizations and environmentalists have come to Karl’s defense.

Karl’s defenders argued the “pause-busting” study has stood up to scientific scrutiny and was independently verified in 2016. Karl’s former NOAA colleague, Thomas Peterson, said the study was expedited once agency officials “realized the significance it could have.”

Peterson said NOAA abided by agency rules, but admitted if the study had jumped through all the data quality checks and archiving Bates said it avoided, the study would have delayed publication “for at least 2 years.”

Bates never formally raised concerns to NOAA officials, but he told TheDCNF he spoke “off the record with several folks to express concerns” as well as with NOAA’s “scientific integrity officer.”

Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of the journal Science, which published the Karl study in June 2015, stood behind the study. They have no plans to retract it.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller


  1. adam_s_0625 February 14, 2017 at 8:46 AM

    Wanna bet that, even though RSS, UAH, and UEA say there is a pause, this NOAA-approved “independent” committee will say the pause never existed.

    • Dano2 February 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM

      BTW, RSS specifically has stated there is no pause and calls out people for cherry-picking their data to state there is a pause.



      • adam_s_0625 February 15, 2017 at 11:49 PM
        • Dano2 February 16, 2017 at 9:17 AM

          You were duped wrong. You can’t hide it.



      • Brin Jenkins February 27, 2017 at 9:37 AM

        Says the cherry picker himself. Just explain how the carbon theory works Dano!

  2. Don Bishop February 14, 2017 at 10:25 AM

    Following Climategate, “independent” people were picked to whitewash the investigations. There is no reason to expect anything different with NOAA.

    President Trump should order the preservation of all data, information and communications until a real investigation can be performed.

    • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 2:04 PM

      Climategate! Drink!



      • charles51 February 16, 2017 at 1:09 AM

        Have some more coolaide Dano2 🙂

  3. MJA5 February 14, 2017 at 1:40 PM

    Wait, if there was no perfidy involved with the publication of this paper, why go through the trouble of investigating it? One of two scenarios:
    1) An independent investigation will support the conclusions of the Pausebuster, or:
    2) Someone gettin’ thrown under the bus

    As we said in Special Ops, if you want a friend, get a dog.

    • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 2:03 PM

      Sadly, they may think that this will keep Lamar Smith and Jim Snowball off the case.

      Since it’s already gone thru peer-review, been published, and validated by another paper, there is no need.



      • MJA5 February 14, 2017 at 2:24 PM


        Apparently your buddies at NOAA don’t agree with you. When the figure out the paper is a sham, they need to nick the authors’ gubment retirement check for the cost of hiring outside investigators. Had the authors proceeded using generally accepted practices, this boondoggle would not be necesary.

        • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 2:27 PM




          • MJA5 February 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM

            Scathing retort. By the way there’s a nice op-ed piece in the NYT where all the looney bins heads are popping because of the current admin’s “anti science” stance. Might be fun for you to go over there and add your voice to the hilarious hyperventilating echo chamber.

            • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM

              The quoted word was the locus of your argument’s failure.



              • MJA5 February 14, 2017 at 4:39 PM

                More of an observation than an argument.

                • Dano2 February 15, 2017 at 10:43 AM

                  Nonetheless, the locus of failure.



      • Tom Austin February 14, 2017 at 4:01 PM

        This from someone who has no understanding of simple chemistry and physics, much less statistical analysis

        • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM

          You made this up: But then you have never submitted nor reviewed papers

          You also made up this implication: peer review means that all the data presented is acceptable and the data supports the conclusions of the paper. If you “play” with the raw data the peer review can not find this .

          It’s especially scurrilous since we know a subsequent paper reinforced the findings of the Karl et al. So it sounds like you are parroting the totem about the Karl et al.



          • Tom Austin February 15, 2017 at 12:43 AM

            Using the same tainted raw data, you idiot. When you use a less reliable data set purposefully over a more reliable one i.e. boat readings over buoy readings that’s called data fraud. When idiots like you try to defend it when the agency itself is calling for an investigation it’s called sad. Grow up and realize that yes climate change is real, catastrophe AGW is a way to get grant money. More and more major names in climatology can no longer lie for the money and are coming out in protest to this grant factory.

            • Dano2 February 15, 2017 at 10:37 AM

              Thanks, smartie-boots. They used different data, as you know, because you play a smart guy on the Internets.



        • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 7:26 PM

          You made this up too: from someone who has no understanding of simple chemistry and physics, much less statistical analysis

          Why make it up?



      • Tom Austin February 14, 2017 at 4:08 PM

        You do know that peer review means that all the data presented is acceptable and the data supports the conclusions of the paper. If you “play” with the raw data the peer review can not find this and the reviewers are as much victims as the public in this matter. But then you have never submitted nor reviewed papers, I have done both.

      • Pam Dunn February 14, 2017 at 7:17 PM

        NO IT HAS NOT you total idiot; There was NO “peer” review and has NOT been “validated” by any other paper that is any more use than toilet paper in an out house.
        Pull your head out.

        • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM

          Thanks smartie-boots, the paper went back twice to the authors during peer-review.

          Also, the findings of Karl et al were validated in this paper.

          In technical terms, you did an ‘ouchie-boo’.



        • adam_s_0625 February 15, 2017 at 8:21 AM

          Hey Pam, Dano has been trolling these blogs for quite a while looking for candidates to abuse. He’s abandoned the scientific method in favor of consensus thinking. Engaging him only leads to more abuse. As someone said, “Best not to argue with a moron. They will drag you into the gutter and beat you with experience.”

          • Immortal600 February 15, 2017 at 8:39 AM

            adam, I have stopped responding to him but he has a need to respond to my posts. Watch this:

            AGW is a scam funded by government grant money.

  4. Concerned February 14, 2017 at 3:12 PM

    Trump has the authority to get the right people involved in the investigation. If he does not get the right people, then it is Trump’s fault and not the whistle-blower. The new head of the EPA must be involved in this review.

  5. Immortal600 February 14, 2017 at 4:14 PM

    AGW is a scam. Thinking people know that. AGW sheep, not so much.

    • Dano2 February 14, 2017 at 7:34 PM


      Clearly there is still a market among the Faux/Breitbartian faithful for claiming that:

      o Thousands of scientists;

      o across a century and a half;

      o in a wide range of specialties;

      o in dozens of countries;

      o on six continents;

      o speaking scores of languages;

      o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

      o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW.

      And, to hide their scam, scientists have recruited the natural world into going along with their plot, namely:

      o Scientists have tricked animals and plants to move up and poleward;

      o scientists have tricked plants to bloom earlier;

      o scientists have tricked seasons to begin earlier;

      o scientists have tricked the ocean into acidifying;

      o scientists have tricked carbon to change its isotopic signature from natural carbon to fossil carbon in the atmosphere, corals, and plants to further the scam;

      o scientists have tricked the tropopause to rise;

      o scientists have tricked the oceans to warm rapidly and sea levels to increase their rate of rise;

      o scientists have tricked the outgoing spectra of the earth into emitting less EM waves in the GHG wavelengths;

      o and all have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?



  6. J T February 14, 2017 at 5:05 PM

    Oh, Dano, I’m so sorry your lies and bullsht have been exposed! In spite of all your best efforts, it looks like your phony science has been exposed, and will now be presented to and judged by this who do NOT share your twisted views. Ha-ha.

  7. AllenBarclayAllen February 14, 2017 at 6:02 PM

    Yes !!
    Stop this descrase !
    President Trump should ensure that investigators are genuinely unbiased.  Any team of investigators should include global warming skeptics to ensure the investigation is genuine and not an exercise in whitewashing.

  8. Joe Fitzgerald February 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM

    The false concepts and false actions of MMGW extreme environmentalists have resulted in the wasteful expenditure of enormous amounts of global wealth, have resulted in the false indoctrination of large segments of at least 2 generations, have resulted in the abandonment of enormous opportunities to better the lives of the human race, & have resulted in the deaths of millions. It will take a massive effort to replace these falsehoods with the truth in order to avoid the ultimate global calamity.

  9. Pam Dunn February 14, 2017 at 7:16 PM

    TOO BAD NOAA didn’t bother to hire EXPERTS before doing all the data manipulation, temperature adjustments and the low life UNSCIENTIFIC bullshyte they have pulled.
    FIRE all their ASSES.

    • Dano2 February 15, 2017 at 12:24 PM

      Nobody did any data manipulation, temperature adjustments and the low life UNSCIENTIFIC bullshyte .

      You can’t show it is true.



  10. Harvey February 15, 2017 at 1:20 AM

    It stands up to reason that when a government would allow complete control of a hemisphere fisheries scheduling into the hands of a commission that stands to gain from common publics participation resulting in catastrophic and regular loss of public participants lives. And continue through the years to purposely scheduling dates open to coincide with the worst possible timing for storm wether conditions, resulting in loss of life. Thereby producing a demand for taking the natural resource out of the publics hands and allocating it to the chosen few. Any one with an ounce of sense should easily be able to understand that data and the manipulation thereof would, could and is, used to gain the desired effect and outcome. This reference is to not only NOAA but the Halibut Commission and the privatization of ocean resources. Fisheries.

  11. Matthew Edwards February 15, 2017 at 10:22 AM

    Nobody can be trusted anymore.
    Too many politics and too much money involved now.
    They cheat the data and lie about it.
    They ignore the source of all our energy; the sun, and say it’s variability has an insignificant effect.
    Well we shall soon see.

  12. 84Cheetah February 15, 2017 at 10:46 AM

    Bet they’re not bringing in any real scientists that are not government paid stooges.

  13. Brian February 15, 2017 at 11:19 AM

    February 13, 2017 Report: Government agency refuses to discipline scientists caught cooking the books

    The inspector general for the National Science Foundation issued a report showing that at least 23 scientists applying for taxpayer-funded grants either plagiarized the text or manipulated data but were not barred from receiving grant money in the future.

    • Dano2 February 15, 2017 at 12:23 PM

      scientists caught cooking the books

      Pssssst….proposals aren’t books.



  14. wally12 February 15, 2017 at 1:31 PM

    This is an interesting article to realize that NOAA will bring in an independent investigating group to check out if the NOAA claim of no pause was actual. NOAA must be worried since if they just deny any wrong doing, they stand to lose government funding under Trump. In the hope an investigation will not find any wrong doing, NOAA may keep government funding alive. I wonder what NOAA ia doing to make sure the investigation finds nothing due to “accidental loss” of some data and or paper work. If the investigation finds wrong doing, NOAA will blame Karl and NOAA will fire Karl to assure no funding gets cut. I hope that the investigation team includes Dr. BAtes as one of the investigators since he probably knows where and how the data Karl used was adjusted.

  15. Brian February 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM

    February 13, 2017 Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

    Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible. Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

  16. Arno_Arrak February 20, 2017 at 6:10 PM

    NOAA has been doing such dirty work with global temperature for years. For example, in 2008 I noted that in the eighties and nineties there was no warming, just a flat temperature platform between the years 1979 and 1997. Today we would call it a hiatus. I used these data in figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” that eventually came out in 2010. But before the book could go to print this flat temperature section suddenly morphed into warming called “late twentieth century warming.” I protested but was simply ignored. As a result, I was forced to add a note about this into the preface of the book when it came out. This, too, was completely ignored and the fake warming has now been part of the official temperature curve of NCDC(NOAA), GISS, and the Met Office for the last 6 years. The three warmist organizations I listed cooperated by showing identical temperature curve ends. Not only the curve ends were identical, the computer errors on all three were also identical. The errors comprise upward pointing sharp spikes. One of them sits right smack on top of the super El Nino peak of 1998.

Comments are closed.