By Julie Kelly
Saturday, February 10, 2017
Congress is ramping up its investigation into a key climate
study, now under further scrutiny after a federal whistleblower raised more
questions about it this week. The scandal some are referring to as “Climategate
Two” (you can learn about the first Climategate here)
is quickly escalating after Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), exposed how an
ex-colleague mishandled a report on global warming right before a major
international climate conference in 2015.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said during
a Tuesday hearing that NOAA “has deceived the American people by falsifying
data to justify a partisan agenda.” He will now push for all documents related
to the climate study, materials he requested via subpoena in 2015 after Obama Administration
officials refused to disclose them.
What Bates
Revealed About a Famous Climate Study
The explosive allegations from Dr. Bates were detailed in
the Daily Mail and on the scientific
blog, Climate, Etc. on February 5.
Bates accuses Tom Karl, former director of the NOAA office responsible for
climate data, of manipulating temperature readings, failing to archive data,
and ignoring agency protocols to rush publishing his study that debunked the
well-known pause in global warming at the beginning of this century.
At the time, climate activists were in a panic because
the premier scientific body in charge of climate science—the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—admitted the rise in global temperatures had
basically stalled from 1998 to 2012. This bombshell was included in the IPCC’s
2013 report, which would serve as the main primer leading up to the United
Nations’ Climate Conference in Paris two years later.
World leaders were poised to obligate their countries
(er, taxpayers) into paying hundreds of billions to ease climate change. The
inconvenient truth that plenty of evidence showed the planet was not
significantly warming would be hard to climatesplain away. To give the climate
leaders a big assist, Karl worked with a team of scientists to prove the pause
didn’t happen, and claim global temperatures were rising just as fast as they
had been at the end of the twentieth century.
Karl specifically cites the IPCC report in the
introduction of his paper published in Science
in June 2015, a few months before the Paris conference. Under the headline,
“Walking back talk of the end of warming,” the authors said, “Here, we present
an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends
are higher than those reported by the IPCC. These results do not support the
notion of a slowdown in the increase in global surface temperatures.”
The paper concludes that “the IPCCs statement is no
longer valid.” In other words: settled.
The Climate Change
Study Was Rigged
But Bates says the researchers “put a thumb on the scale”
to reach their conclusions. He reveals other alarming details, like how the
computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure. Chairman Smith
responded immediately to Bates’s allegations, thanking him for “exposing the
previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense
of scientific integrity.”
Shortly after Bates’ exposé was posted, climate skeptics
and conservative outlets began reporting on it—including Fox News, the Wall
Street Journal, and the Washington Times (my piece in NRO is here).
And of course it wasn’t long before climate activists and their media
propagandists seized on Bates, attacking his credibility and motives while
insisting Karl’s report was indeed credible and backed up by other scientists.
True to form, the same media that helped promote Karl’s
study before the Paris climate conference overlooked key parts of Bates’s
account. Neither the Washington Post,
New York Times, nor the Associated
Press mentioned IPCC as the source for the global warming pause, the main
reason for Karl’s rebuke. Nor did they mention Bates’ shocking claim that the
computer used to process the data had crashed.
Media Rushes to Defend Karl’s Study
Other lowlights from that group include the
following. New York Times headline: “No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate
Study, Researchers Say.” Reporter Henry Fountain starts by smearing the Daily
Mail reporter who wrote Bates’ exposé, excusing away the accusations and
claiming the global warming pause became a “cause célèbre among climate change
denialists.” Fountain then cites a few scientists who support Karl and finishes
up insisting the study had no impact on the Paris accord.
Associated Press headline: “Major Global Warming Study
Again Questioned, Again Defended.” Reporter Seth Borenstein referred to the
scandal as “bickering,” a “kerfuffle,” and a mere “hubbub” about data
management and storage.
Washington Post
headline: “As the Planet Warms, Doubters Launch a New Attack on a Famous
Climate Change Study.” Do you really need anything after that? Reporter Chelsea
Harvey refutes every point of Bates’s account and cites “multiple” scientists
who support the Karl study. (Bates said in his blogpost he first offered his
story to the Washington Post last
year and they declined. Shocker.)
The Media Weren’t
The Only Study Apologists
The media weren’t the only Karl study apologists. Rush
Holt, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) which publishes Science,
testified at Smith’s hearing on Tuesday. Holt brushed off the allegations—this
was about 48 hours after the article posted, basically no time to check the
veracity—calling it an “internal dispute” and concluding it’s “not the making
of a big scandal.” Another committee member warned Holt to withhold judgement
on the matter until the matter was fully investigated.
There’s a little (a lot?) of irony to this whole affair.
The very same scientific community and liberal media outlets that have been
hysterical since November 8, claiming the Trump Administration will silence
scientists and have a chilling effect on science, are the very same people now
attacking one of their own for speaking up. Chalk this up as one more example
of liberal hypocrisy, exposed thanks to Donald Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment