WELCOME

When asked about the paper via email, Bates described it

Oct. 19, 2017 by Elizabeth Duran

When asked about the paper via email, Bates described it as "completely misleading" because the authors were using a statistical model based on a "conventional" method of reporting. As for the paper itself, he said that it was in fact a "substantial update" to an earlier NOAA dataset that had been revised in December 2015, only to be corrected in February 2016.

It is important to point out that the original NOAA paper also failed to include relevant data from the NOAA climate change datasets and did not present "a compelling case" for the study's "pause" argument. In fact, the original NOAA paper simply failed to make any reference to changes in sea level rise. Instead, it presented an "increased trend" in the Arctic that was consistent with "natural variability" and had a "significant influence on the observed warming." The authors of the new study were also criticized for their lack of follow-up on changes in sea level.

Despite his efforts, the paper still received a "foulish" letter by a former NOAA scientist who claimed he had been misled by a whistleblower. While the letter wasn't made public by the author, it did show up in the Science Daily report. This is in contrast to the original NOAA paper's assertion that the "pause" argument was "inconsistent with" "natural variability."

The Science Daily report also reported a false story by a former NOAA scientist about the "pause" argument. The scientist claimed he had been told by several "experts" that the "pause" argument was "unsupported" by data from NASA satellites that were in the "slowest point of the last ice age," and that this "pause" was due to a "low level of ocean temperature fluctuations."

Bates described the "pause" argument as "simply a myth" and called for scientists to "reexamine whether human-caused climate change is occurring or not."

It is important to note that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has not released any official statements on the recent NOAA study. In fact, NOAA spokesman Jim Houlton has publicly stated that NOAA is doing its best to keep their data "in good faith."