Whistleblower: World Leaders at UN Climate Conference Duped by Fraudulent Report

The theory of global warming as a result of human activities has been an incredibly divisive topic for decades. It has been especially attractive to liberals as it implies the need for some sort of global initiative or governance to deal adequately with the crisis. Thus, it is a problem just looking for the sort of solution that appeals to many on the left.

The first question to answer, then, is whether the science behind this theory is sound or not. Proponents of the theory claim that it has been proven to be correct. Others differ. Conflict abounds.

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

If true, it does make some sense. Clearly, arming politicians like Obama with “proof” of global warming serves the purposes of both NOAA and Mr. Obama, who was already sold on the theory.

So what was in this report by NOAA that was so attractive to Mr. Obama and his fellow global warming enthusiasts?

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

Yet, this report by NOAA is fraudulent? Meaning the politicians and their policy wonks based their decisions and actions on bogus information? What is the evidence of this?

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

Dr. Bates is a brave man for coming forward with this information. The Mail calls his evidence that the document was based on deliberately falsified data (read, “lies”) “irrefutable.” So much for NOAA’s integrity. And it means that the politicians who bought into this were duped — probably willingly, since they want the theory to be right to advance their globalist agenda — but they were still played for fools.

And there will be consequences from Dr. Bates’ revelation.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

The details of how the data and report were manipulated get rather technical, but the main point is very plain: the report is fraudulent. It was fabricated to suit a political agenda, not to responsibly report scientific findings.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

If this report was used at the Paris summit to formulate policy, then the degree to which the participants relied on it is the degree to which the results and findings of that summit itself are erroneous. And hence, should be discarded.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

Is this entire global warming crisis a hoax being used by globalist leaders to press for additional steps toward world-government? It’s just this sort of revelations that support that very notion. Mr. Gore should be concerned.

Source: Daily Mail