Trump does not need a reason to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, but if he did, a recent exposure of corruption at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would suffice.
It is just the most recent example of the deliberate corruption of science to meet a political agenda that is the entire history of the global warming deception.
The scientific method involves creating a hypothesis based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists, acting in their role as skeptics, immediately try to disprove the hypothesis, almost always by showing that one of the assumptions is wrong. In the case of the human (anthropogenic) caused global warming (AGW) hypothesis this did not happen. The people responsible for its creation, members of the group that formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determined to prove the hypothesis. As Douglas Yates said,
“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”
It was inevitable that despite attempts to limit and direct research through funding, or only publishing articles that seemed to support the hypothesis, the facts would emerge. Aldous Huxley explained,
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
These facts put the hypothesis in jeopardy, and a proper scientific reaction requires a re-examination of the science.
Promoters of the UN IPCC global warming were not acting like scientists. The chose to ignore, alter, misrepresent, anything that didn’t support their claim that human CO2 was causing global warming. The most extreme example was when they completely rewrote climate history by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). It had to go because it contradicted their claim that current temperatures were higher than ever before.
The most recent example was revealed in June 2015. The IPCC predicted that as CO2 increased the global temperature would continue to rise. It stopped happening after 1998 as Figure 1 shows.
I added the red lines and the labels because they illustrate the change in trend. I also added the labels Global Warming and Climate Change. The problem they had was that global temperature stopped rising, but CO2 continued to increase. In other words, their prediction was wrong, and proper science would reexamine the science. Instead, they changed the name. We have that on record because 2004 leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) said,
“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,
“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”
The period of no temperature increase became an increasing problem to their story. Initially, Benjamin Santer said it was not significant and would only become so after 17 years. This was the same Santer involved in one of the earliest alterations of data known as the Chapter 8 debacle. He took wording agreed to by the committee and altered it on his own in the final Report. For example, the original wording was
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
The top portion of Figure 2 shows the section of the graph Santer chose to make his claim. The lower portion shows the larger graph with no trend. It is standard corrupted climate science known as “cherry-picking.”
The prolonged period with no temperature increase, now known as “the hiatus” or the “pause,” exceeded Santer’s 17-year requirement. It caught the attention of the cartoonists.
A report claimed that Dr. John Bates, a recently retired NOAA scientist, was witness to an incorrectly produced paper. The article headline read, “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” Bates was a hero to some and incorrectly called a whistleblower. He knew about the corruption in 2015 and waited until he retired to “go public.” The paper he referred to was one by Karl and Peterson, NOAA employees, deliberately created using known bad data and inappropriate methods. It was rushed through because President Obama was determined to ratify the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015 as a major part of his Presidential legacy.
Bates claimed he told his bosses about the problem then, but they ignored him. The problem is everything was already in the public record at the time. I listened to Congressman Lamar Smith tell the general audience at the June 2015 Heartland Conference that subpoenas were filed requesting full disclosure of all the material. He also told us the requests were rejected, but a follow-up was in progress. The same information was reported in the mainstream media, albeit with a bias.
Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar that he was implementing his global warming agenda through the UN because
He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.
As Dewar concluded:
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
This latest example of corrupted science by bureaucrats is evidence enough of why Trump must withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Climate program. He should also reduce NOAA to data collection. Indeed, all national weather agencies that were used by Strong to create and promulgate the biggest deception in history, including Environment Canada, should be reduced to data collection agencies. Their science is corrupt, and their forecasts were always wrong. Besides, bureaucrats must do what they are told; scientists must always question.