CLIMATEGATE 4.0: Whistleblower Reveals NOAA’s Long History of Manipulating Temperature Data

NOAA is forging data to push man made global warming, so says a whistle blower.

While there is documented proof that climate change has occurred over the years, a whistleblower is claiming that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association is directly responsible for pushing the existence of man-made “global warming” by forging temperature data.

John Bates retired from National Climatic Data Center and he saying NOAA is faking numbers to support man made global warming. He says there is a 18 years pause that is being covered up by a Thomas Karl, he works for NOAA and is manipulating data to push man made global warming.

After retiring as a scientist at the National Climatic Data Center last year, John Bates emerged on the front of the “global warming” debate as a whistleblower to cool the heated battle on man-made climate change by calling attention to the NOAA.

Bates said he decided to speak out after he read an article from the Washington Post titled, “Scientists Are Frantically Copying U.S. Climate data, Fearing It Might Vanish Under Trump.” Bates saw this as a joke, having worked for the NCDC and reportedly seeing the fraud firsthand.

Bates accused Thomas Karl, the lead author of the 2015 NOAA “pause buster” report of trying to “discredit” the temperature pause through “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards.”

The chart shows the pause in global warming, this is what NOAA is trying to manipulate and hide.


wearechange.org...

You're a bit late.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But this is false:

He says there is a 18 years pause that is being covered up by a Thomas Karl, he works for NOAA and is manipulating data to push man made global warming.

Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He 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 that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

www.eenews.net...

www.lse.ac.uk...

Nothing new here! They have been manipulating for some time, and it's known. Amazing, really, that some still believe anything that crowd tells them.

Ahhhh greed, what would we do without you?

Would our government and politics be boring if they were actually benevolent? I have a feeling that we will never find out the answer to that question.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Amazing, really, that some still believe anything that crowd tells them.

Yes. Warming skeptics will believe anything. Bates did not say data was manipulated. Not even close.

a reply to: seasonal

One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Otto Edenhofer, former official on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told a Swiss newspaper while he was serving as a co-chair on one of the IPCC's working group in 2010.

This isn't an isolated remark.

February 2015, Christina Figueres, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told a press conference in Brussels that the goal was to "Intentionally transform the economic world model." She went on: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution."

So, you AGW cultists that says the science is proven because of the scientists behind it, here are some of them talking to you about the why.

So by all means listen... after all, you are the ones that say they know what they are talking about.

a reply to: Phage

The arrogance of man is a sight to behold.

Man made global warming. Good one, tell me another funny.

a reply to: Phage

Man made global warming just stopped for almost 19 years. Sounds logical.

a reply to: GreyScale
It's expected that one provide links for their external quotes.


Edenhofer was talking about a policy (global trading) which does not exist. He's saying that any global environmental policy, by its very nature becomes economic in nature but not because that is the intent. I'm confused though, he's talking about how such a policy would result in the wealth of huge corporations being "redistributed" to less developed nations.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

www.newsbusters.org...

So warming is nothing but a scam to take money away from oil companies and give it to poor African nations?

a reply to: seasonal

Man made global warming just took stopped for almost 19 years.

No. It didn't.
Bates doesn't say it did.

a reply to: Phage

First off, the planet isn't warming anymore lately so please go back to the "Climate Change" meme.

Secondly, it's a means of making everyone on the planet equal.

With wise and benevolent people in charge to help them with their decisions in lefe, of course.

Read up on Hegel, get up to speed with the Progressive agenda.

I consider this post helping a person. What you do with that is entirely up to you.

a reply to: seasonal

Yes, exactly. I am still waiting for those fossils of the mammoths driving those evil SUVs to be found at the end of the Younger Dryas period. It has to be that. I mean we as humans know our world and the solar system with complete understanding right? It certainly couldn't be that big glowing orb in the sky that would be causing temperature fluctuations. Or maybe the volcanoes of the past spewing massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere, greater on any scale that we humans could ever compete with.

It was us. We humans that have such power over our environment that we can cause global cooling ... errr I mean heating ... wait a second, what is it this month? I have problems keeping up.

a reply to: Phage

just the chart

a reply to: seasonal
Do you know the data source for that chart? It comes from satellite data.
Do you think satellites lower thermometers into the atmosphere?

In any case. Here is the full RSS dataset.
woodfortrees.org...

a reply to: Phage

We have to go with some data.

What data should we use? The temp in heat sink cities?

a reply to: GreyScale

First off, the planet isn't warming anymore lately

False

a reply to: seasonal

How about the ocean?
www.livescience.com...

www.livescience.com...

Please dont be skeptical of climate change
Its just not allowed

"You really have to provide the most objective view and let the policymakers decide from their role," Bates said. "I'm getting much more wary of scientists growing into too much advocacy. I think there is certainly a role there, and yet people have to really examine themselves for their own bias and be careful about that."http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

Please dont put any pressure on scientists who accept it
Its just not allowed

"the NOAA study relied on land data that were "experimental."Typically, NOAA officials can publish research that relies partially on experimental data, as long as the data are properly identified, especially if there is an urgent situation that requires something to go out quickly because it is related to human health, safety and the environment."http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

Please dont question anyone who tells you, or is implied they are smarter than you
again, its not allowed.


"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,"http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

Please dont ask those in charge of the information to be open and honest with the data that is publicly funded
Its not easy to manipulate data thats on public record, if indeed its manipulated, but why withold it in the first place.
Secrets by their very nature are lies.

Science, this is politics, its not science

a reply to: Phage

Your charts use satellite data, I am confused to the usefulness of this data as it mirrors ocean data. But it doesn't, yet it does.

See a problem with the politicization of the climate and the news?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: seasonal

How about the ocean?
www.livescience.com...

www.livescience.com...

How about the ocean, whats your point, what is the point?

You are being disingenuous, many dont deny the ocean is warming.
This is about man made global warming, you are just trying to blur that line with arguments unrelated

Read Seasonals opening lineof this post

"NOAA is forging data to push man made global warming, so says a whistle blower." not ocean warming for assumed reasons
If this is just about point scoring Phage, I am sorry for you