Pirate's Cove

There’s nothing surprising in the notion that government agencies and private companies are manipulating data on the climate in order to make it appear worse than it is. To have it stated specifically by someone in the know should bring a Congressional investigation

(Daily Caller) A whistleblower says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed a landmark study claiming the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence international climate negotiations.

Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., told the Daily Mail NOAA’s 2015 study was meant “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.”

Bates said NOAA scientists made a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of global warming to eliminate the “pause” in temperature rise since 1998. The Daily Mail claims Bates showed it “irrefutable” evidence NOAA’s study relied on “unverified” data.

Bates’ objections to the paper were ignored by his superiors, who let scientists make “decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation” in advance of a major United Nations climate summit in Paris, France.

In fact, the House committee on Science, Space, and Technology is still investigating data manipulation by NOAA. It’s easy to see. If they are retroactively “adjusting” the data, then they’re attempting to manipulate things to make the temperature changes look worse. Even if it is tenths or even hundreds of a degree, that’s something rarely broadcast in the stories of Climate Doom.

But the Karl study may have had deeper problems.

It was based on two “flawed” temperature datasets, Bates told The Daily Mail.

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 Daily Mail learned.

NOAA’s revised data will show “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,’” and based on an “alpha” version that was never verified. It still hasn’t been approved.

Yet, they still used it in order to propagate Climate Doom. Have you seen any front page articles highlighting that the study was flawed and that the datasets were so bad they have to be replaced? No. Nor will you. That would harm the Narrative.

And, if there’s a Narrative, that’s not Science. But, then, this whole climastrology craze has never been based on science.