Skip to content

Booker On The NOAA Scandal

February 12, 2017

By Paul Homewood




Booker weighs in on the latest NOAA scandal:


Two years ago last week, I wrote a column given the provocative heading “The fiddling of temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. It was the second of two articles which attracted a record 42,000 comments from all over the world, reporting on the discovery by expert bloggers in half a dozen countries – led in Britain by Paul Homewood on his site “Not a lot of people know that” – that something very odd appeared to have been done to the official land surface temperature records on which, more than anything else, the entire alarm over man-made global warming has rested.

These derive from the record known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), run by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). By comparing archived data with that now being published, the bloggers claimed to have discovered that temperature records all over the world had, seemingly, been systematically “adjusted” to show older temperatures lower than those originally measured and more recent temperatures higher than those recorded: thus conveying the notion that the world is warming significantly more than the actual data justified.

This scandal has now  surfaced again with accusations made by Dr John Bates, a recently retired senior scientist at the NOAA, against his former boss , Tom Karl. Bates alleges that an NOAA paper written before the historic climate conference in Paris in 2015 breached its own rules and was based on misleading and unverified data. That, to many, looks like the paper was designed to stoke up hysteria over global warming in the run-up to the conference.

A Greenpeace protest hot air balloon is launched near the Eiffel Tower in Paris

2015 saw a major climate conference in Paris Credit: Benoit Tessier/Reuters

The warmist lobby had no greater concern at that time than the so-called “pause”: the evidence that, for nearly 20 years, the trend in global temperatures had been failing to rise as all the official computer models had predicted it should.

Karl’s paper won worldwide publicity by purporting to show that there had, in fact, been no “pause”, and that both land and sea temperatures had continued to rise more than was previously accepted.

What Dr Bates now claims is that, in defiance of rules he himself drew up and over his (Bates’s) private objections, Karl’s paper had again been based on “adjustments” that the scientific evidence didn’t justify.

The paper, widely quoted by President Barack Obama and others, played a key part in persuading the Paris conference to sign a “historic” (but non-binding) agreement to take all sorts of hugely costly measures to prevent global temperatures rising by “more than two degrees”.

Dr Bates’s claims could not be more timely; the word from Washington is that a high priority of Donald Trump’s administration, and the science committee in the US Congress, is that they now want a full investigation of all this temperature “adjusting”, which – contrary to the satellite data – looks like it has been giving such a dangerously unscientific picture of just how far and fast the world has in reality been warming. Once this scandal has been properly brought out into the open, it will raise the most disturbing question mark yet over the promotion of the greatest and costliest scare story the world has ever known.

  1. A C Osborn permalink
    February 12, 2017 12:32 pm

    Paul, most of us Forum denizens realise that this has been going on for many years.
    Did you look at the data posted by Peter O’Neill?
    They are actually changing the RAW DATA now as well as making adjustments in line with TOBS etc.

    • February 12, 2017 1:30 pm

      I do not believe they are “changing” the raw data. This appears more like incompetence in collating the data from the various national sources, combined with the expected belief of the incompetent that verification is unnecessary. You can find my (still evolving) post on this at

      • A C Osborn permalink
        February 13, 2017 3:54 pm

        Although not quite has bad as “changing” the Raw Data, being unable to simply transfer the data accurately smacks of total incompetence.
        Hardly what you would expect from the organisation that put men on the moon.

  2. A C Osborn permalink
    February 12, 2017 12:34 pm

    One of his examples.

  3. Bitter&twisted permalink
    February 12, 2017 1:00 pm

    One can only hope that Trump and Lamar put an end to this monstrous scam.
    However I suspect that even if they kill it in the US, the scam will continue this side of the pond.
    To much cash and vested interests.

  4. February 12, 2017 1:33 pm

    “Climate change”: the world’s biggest scientific scam, based on fake physics and fake data, presented to the public (and politicians) by way of about 30 years of fake news from a compliant media (led by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation). Heads should roll.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    February 12, 2017 1:50 pm

    The evidence for a systematic seasonal lowering of older temperature data is overwhelming. The “raw” data at Hadley (East Anglia) have been destroyed..


    “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

    NOAA has just recently “adjusted” their monthly ENSO anomalies, but only those in the 21st century. All others back to 1950 are unchanged.

    The evidence for data “improvement” just about everywhere is pervasive.

    • Roy Hartwell permalink
      February 12, 2017 4:46 pm

      In my pre-retirement work I was involved with analytical method development, validation and qualification for submitting to FDA for drug approval. If I had ‘lost’ ANY raw data (including ‘duff’ HPLC runs) I would have been CRUCIFIED.

  6. CheshireRed permalink
    February 12, 2017 2:13 pm

    There’s been a relentless tide of scandals surrounding climate data, papers and so-called science. A handful could be dismissed as just noise, but so many across multiple different disciplines? No chance. It seems to me the main deniers here are government and vested interests who refuse to accept the blindingly obvious conclusion; that AGW has been one giant racket from day one.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      February 12, 2017 2:30 pm

      No governments & vested interests are not deniers, they are fully paid up members to Agenda 21 and thse that followed.

      • roger permalink
        February 12, 2017 3:10 pm

        Clear the Westminster swamp!
        Theresa May has had long enough to address this scam.
        Once Article 50 is go, it will be time to either open up this new front or be seen as complicit in the continuation of this blatant fraud upon the electorate.

  7. sarastro92 permalink
    February 12, 2017 3:14 pm

    The scandal, I’m afraid, is that Bates has walked back most of his more egregious claims. His comments are strictly procedural and process oriented … he is not claiming that the Karl15 data are tainted, biased, bogus or any such thing. This whole episode has cast critics of NOAA in a bad light. Sorry. That’s how things line up.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      February 12, 2017 3:41 pm

      Sorry, it is obvious that from his own post on Climate etc that he has been “got at” since he posted.
      But we do not need his continued support, he has told Trump, Congress and the new head of NOAA, who will be appointed soon, exactly where and what to look at.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        February 12, 2017 3:59 pm

        So, the Climate Brief website has put up a “fudged” graph to try support the Karl15 paper.
        How embarassing to have 5 of the Karl15 paper’s Scientists, plus 5 more Scientists get it so wrong.

      • sarastro92 permalink
        February 12, 2017 8:07 pm

        Look… Bates knew the heat would be on… so he shouldn’t start something he can’t finish… in any case, the comments on CE point out that Bates was a proponent on ERSSTv4 upon which Karl based his “adjustments” on. Bates himself indicated that he has no substantive challenge to Karl15, just procedural stuff. And furthermore K15 apparently has been vindicated using other methods by Hausfather… That’s just the facts.

        I did post this comment on Carbon Brief, but the site said I was “banned” and so the comment wasn’t published

        “Look… all I’m seeing is that the most modern buoy system, with for more extensive coverage than older, obsolete systems is running .1 C or so cooler than an ensemble of bad data. All the hand waving in the world can’t convince me good data has to be vitiated by bad to provide “continuity” or something…”

  8. Bitter&twisted permalink
    February 12, 2017 4:23 pm

    I have a 54 year-old Jaguar which on a good day manages 23mpg.
    Still since, like our coal fire, it runs on “fossil sunshine”, I have a clear conscience, even if by some miracle climate science is not a scam.

    • richard verney permalink
      February 13, 2017 1:30 am

      Keeping an old car on the road is green.

      Far more Co2 is produced in scrapping, recyling and manufacturing a new car.

      no reason why it should not give you many years of good service.

  9. Bitter&twisted permalink
    February 12, 2017 4:28 pm

    Don’t you all hate Elon Musk-rat?
    His only “genius” is his ability to rob the taxpayer blind.
    Now the disgusting parasite is sucking up to Trump.
    I do hope Trump treats Musk-rat with the contempt he deserves.

    • dennisambler permalink
      February 12, 2017 6:54 pm

      He doesn’t want the government well to dry up:

      “Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.”

      “He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”

  10. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 12, 2017 5:16 pm

    Elon Musk and most high-profile business people hire well trained others to keep the entities within the law. Those smart folks look at any new law or regulation and ask how can our company make money from this new thing. [In some cases they likely helped draft the language of the law.]
    Government agencies monitor many things in society and when entities cross the line from bending the law to breaking it there are consequences. Some pay fines, companies go bankrupt, and sometimes people go to jail.
    In the USA, Congress, the Agencies, and the Courts (and yes the presidents) have created the system that Elon Musk, “Bernie” Madoff, Martha Stewart, and the Trump businesses work within.
    If Musk, or anyone else [ –{Warren Buffett} is one of the majors] robs “the taxpayer blind.” that’s a price the US pays for not being Russia or Venezuela.

  11. February 12, 2017 7:12 pm

    Up until a few years ago, all the temperature series more or less agreed that the pause was real. Then suddenly, they decided to change it to remove the pause – except of course the satellites which aren’t subject to their fraudulent behaviour in the same way (yet).

    If it were any other group, I might inquire as to why they had so clearly changed something so key, but given the low life that produce the climate “temperature”… we know why, and given we know it’s fake, it hardly seems worth knowing how they did it.

  12. 4TimesAYear permalink
    February 13, 2017 1:29 am

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  13. February 13, 2017 12:55 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “The warmist lobby had no greater concern at that time than the so-called “pause”: the evidence that, for nearly 20 years, the trend in global temperatures had been failing to rise as all the official computer models had predicted it should.”

    Enter NOAA’s Tom Karl and Thomas Peterson who both refused congressional subpoena on their flawed ‘pausebuster’ paper with NOAA’s Tom Karl conveniently resigning before the fake “pause buster” paper was released.

    Something smells right? Yep.

  14. duke silver permalink
    February 13, 2017 7:39 pm

    Unfortunately, ‘incompetent collating’ has the air of innocent buffoonery about it. There was nothing innocent here – call it what it was. Fraud …. with a side of “innocent buffoonery” along for the modicum of well-planned plausible deniability.

  15. Martin Hertzberg permalink
    February 17, 2017 8:15 pm

    It is ironic that the pathological liar and megalomaniac Trump may turn out to be the instrument that brings the Nation to its senses on “climate change”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: