monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

In more testimony to the House Science Committee last week, Holt pulled one sentence from an article published in an environmental journal that morning, quoting Bates as saying, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with the data but rather really of timing a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

I asked the AAAS (which publishes Science, where the Karl study first appeared) why the head of their organization selected that one quote and failed to address the other issues Bates had raised: not vetting experimental data, failing to meet agency standards, and rushing to publish the report.

Science editor in chief Jeremy Berg told me that Holt’s statement to Congress “was consistent with impressions from other private communications that had been conveyed to Holt.”

The science media also went into overdrive to twist Bates’s words and allegations. Science ran its own article on February 8, with the headline “How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study.”

Don’t expect this to stop any time soon. Climate alarmists and profiteers will only intensify their smear campaign as this unravels. Congress is now expanding its investigation of NOAA, Bates has indicated that more information and documents are forthcoming, and NOAA is now saying it will bring in outside experts to analyze the Karl report. As Holt told the House Science Committee, “when one’s cherished beliefs and partisan ideologies and wishful thinking have turned out to be wanting, scientific evidence is most likely all that remains.” No doubt he completely missed the irony of his own statement.

U.S. Government ‘To Push Ahead’ With NOAA Climate Fraud Investigation

Published on February 8, 2017

House lawmakers will renew their long-dormant investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the heels of whistleblower testimony that agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

Smith’s investigation largely petered out in late 2015 after the Obama administration refused to hand over scientists’ emails regarding highly-publicized “Karl study,” named after its lead author Tom Karl.

“The committee is going to push ahead to gather the emails from NOAA,” the aide said, signalling Smith preferred to see if NOAA would hand over documents the agency withheld from congressional investigators.

The Karl study made changes to historical sea surface temperature records, effectively doubling the warming trend of that period to 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade from 0.039 degrees per decade. Some scientists were skeptical of the data, and lawmakers were briefed on the study in summer 2015.

Over the weekend, Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., went public with complaints that NOAA scientists put a ‘thumb on the scale’ to get results that showed more global warming since 1998 — a period usually referred to as the “pause” in warming.

Bates told The Daily Mail the authors of the Karl study wanted “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Moreover, Bates said Karl did not archive his study as required by NOAA policy, and noted the computer holding the software used by the study “suffered a complete failure.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it will “review” allegations its researchers rushed the Karl study.