In a shocking revelation, Dr. John Bates — recently retired US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist — has made an incredible claim against his former superiors. NOAA is supposed to be the world’s primary source of climate data. But if Dr. Bates’ accusation is proven to be true, NOAA’s credibility will be in serious jeopardy.
As reported by Mail Online, Dr. Bates said that NOAA’s climate change department head, Thomas Karl, based his ‘pausebuster’ report on incorrect data, then had it published anyway to help push forward billions of investments to help in the fight against global warming.
The ‘pausebuster’ report is the anathema to the ‘global warming pause’ report which says that after rising steadily between 1950 and 1999, global temperatures seemed to have stabilized from 2000 until 2014 in spite of increasing levels of CO2 emissions — the main culprit driving the Earth’s warming. The report, which was revealed by UN scientists in 2012, was contradicted by Karl’s ‘pausebuster’ which came out in 2015 — uncannily in time with the scheduled Paris congregation about climate change.
According to Karl’s report, the global warming hiatus did not happen. Even worse, global temperatures did not just continue rising, but rose faster than expected. This conclusion was supposedly derived from two data sets, one measuring land temperature, and the other measuring sea temperature. These sets of data have now been confirmed as fake, and in an attempt to cover it up, NOAA changed the set of data that measured sea temperature.
Bates said that instead of using correct data from its floating buoys, NOAA opted to use incorrect data. “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer,” Bates was quoted as saying.
As for the data that measured land temperature, the software used supposedly got ‘bugged’ that every time it took a temperature reading, it came out with a different result, making it unreliable.
Bates went on to say that Karl’s report did not go through NOAA’s stringent internal evaluation process (which he devised) and that his objections to publishing the faulty report was ignored by his superiors. Karl supposedly insisted on decisions and choices that favored the discrediting of the global warming hiatus, rushing the paper’s publication to ‘influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
We now have two different sides to a story that affects the entire world. The question is: should it really matter whether there was a global warming pause or not? We can’t deny that we are experiencing adverse weather phenomena that can only be attributed to global warming. So what if data was exaggerated to push nations into making commitments that might turn out to be for everyone’s benefit? Ultimately, we all want the same thing – survival. So maybe, the end might justify the means. But it’s too soon to tell.