Americans are becoming aware of the Left Stream Media’s Fake
News. Now Americans should examine the evidence of the Fake Science that global
Leftists promote to ram the Climate Change hoax down our throat.
JRH 2/10/17
****************
Congress Investigates
Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science
By Julie
Kelly
FEBRUARY 10, 2017
The scientific community
and media outlets that claimed Trump will silence scientists are now attacking
one of their own for speaking up.
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.
______________
Julie Kelly is a National
Review Online contributor and food policy writer from Orland Park, Illinois.
She's also been published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune,
Forbes, and The Hill.
Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All
Rights Reserved.
