NCDC/NCEI's Karl and Peterson refuse congressional subpoena on flawed 'pausebuster' paper

karl-peterson

Wow, just wow. I told Dr. Tom Peterson in an email this summer that their highly questionable paper that adjusted SST’s of the past to erase the “pause” was going to become “their waterloo”, and Peterson’s response was to give the email to wackadoodle climate blogger Miriam O’Brien (aka Sou Bundanga) so she could tout it with the usual invective spin that she loves to do. How “professional” of Peterson, who made the issue political payback with that action.

Another reminder of Peterson’s “professionalism” is this political cartoon he made portraying climate scientists holding different published opinions as “nutters”, while working on the taxpayer’s dime, courtesy of the Climategate emails in 2009:

CRU_climategate_email_marooned

Now, it looks like Karl and Peterson think they are above the law and forget who they actually work for. They’ve really stepped in it now.

Via The Hill:


 

Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research

The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.

Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.

At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report. Skeptics of climate change, including Smith, have cited the pause to insist that increased greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, are not heating up the globe.

Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, vehemently disagreed with the study’s findings. He issued a subpoena for communications among the scientists and some data, leading to charges from Democrats that he was trying to intimidate the researchers.

Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted.

NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.

“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.

“We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner. It is the end product of exchanges between scientists — the detailed publication of scientific work and the data that underpins the authors’ findings — that are key to understanding the conclusions reached.”

Clayton also refuted Smith’s implication that the study was political.

“There is no truth to the claim that the study was politically motivated or conducted to advance an agenda,” she said. “The published findings are the result of scientists simply doing their job, ensuring the best possible representation of historical global temperature trends is available to inform decisionmakers, including the U.S. Congress.”

Smith defended his investigation, saying NOAA’s work is clearly political.

“It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades,” he said in a statement. “The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”

Smith also said NOAA’s assertion of confidentiality is incorrect.

“The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents,” he said, adding that his panel would use “all tools at its disposal” to continue investigating. Smith has been communicating with NOAA about the research since it was published in the summer, and their exchanges have grown increasingly hostile. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), the committee’s ranking Democrat, has sharply criticized Smith’s requests.”

More here: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258375-agency-wont-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research

h/t to WUWT reader “catcracking”


 

The purpose of the Karl et al. paper was to erase the pause, clearly a political move, and one that is already backfiring in the scientific arena as noted climatologist Gerald Meehl has made some pushback against their politically based science.

Note: about ten minutes after publication, this story was edited to fix some text formatting errors.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
409 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tomwys1
October 28, 2015 12:41 pm

They’ll probably go after the RSS data too, and claim it has to be adjusted, as it doesn’t properly reflect the Hot Air arising out of NOAA

Reply to  tomwys1
October 28, 2015 5:13 pm

Same, same in Australia, “when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.” Substitute BoM (Bureau of Meteorology) for NOAA and the situation is the same, fiddle (Homogenize) the numbers so that you can obtain the result you want, claim the HOTTEST EVER, and then refuse to tell us how you got there. Thankfully, we have a wonderful bunch of skeptics that have been pocking all sorts of holes in BoM numbers, still they refuse categorically to release the “Models” they used…. Shonks!

lee
Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
October 28, 2015 5:38 pm

What model?
‘The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention.’
How do you model “operator intervention”?

Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
October 28, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: “How do you model “operator intervention”?”
The most dangerous part of an automotive vehicle, the part most likely to fail.. is..
“The nut behind the wheel.”
There is your “operator intervention”.

observa
Reply to  Mareeba Property Management
October 28, 2015 8:54 pm

Re: “How do you model “operator intervention”?”
Dunno, beats me but perhaps the IT experts ex VW could help us all out here?

Dahlquist
Reply to  tomwys1
October 28, 2015 9:35 pm

Off topic… Just finished watching the Republican Presidential debate. It seems that some of the candidates actually believe in CAGW and are supporting renewables. I am disappointed that these candidates have not been more well informed of the issues. That global warming is not yet a settled issue and that the science is still out to lunch.
It would be a really good idea for the issues concerning global warming, or not… or some, or none, be brought to the attention of these conservatives running for the Presidency so that they are not ignorant of the facts. Many of them seen uninformed or only aware of the media hype about it. Since it is an issue with such a huge potential for having a very large effect on our economy, etc, etc, there should be a concerted effort by this site and any other individuals or organizations concerned with the issue to bring to these candidates a better understanding of the facts. What can we or this website do to accomplish this?
Anthony Watts, you are batter up in the game here. Any ideas for an effort to accomplish this mission?
Dahlquist

Nylo
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 28, 2015 11:45 pm

Supporting renewables is not a completely bad thing – if done for the right reasons and in the right way.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 29, 2015 4:05 am

Ted Cruz knows exactly what’s going on with “CAGW”–he’s been outspoken in his criticism of this nefarious trick. Support Cruz if you want an honest assessment and response to the clowns that have made a mockery of science, politics, and policy.

Ian W
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 29, 2015 4:06 am

@ Dahlquist October 28, 2015 at 9:35 pm and Nylo October 28, 2015 at 11:45 pm
They are politicians with money men backers. There is huge money in the scam particularly in guaranteed government funding for subsidy farms. It is the guaranteed returns that got Warren Buffet into the game. Who cares about the poor not being able to afford heating – look at the returns when compared to any other investment. This is a trough that the backers of these candidates do not want to see taken away. So they will all believe in faeries if required just to keep their greedy backers happy.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 29, 2015 4:24 am

vote for Cruz

Klem
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 29, 2015 5:14 am

Warren Buffet said: “”I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
And Buffet’s company, now believed to be the largest wind farmer in the USA, generates $1 billion a year in wind and solar tax credits. Pretty sweet.
We were told that wind farms were here to save the planet. I think they lied.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 29, 2015 6:01 am

The only thing they “believe in” is whatever statement will get them the most votes, period.

Menicholas
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 29, 2015 6:41 am

I am prepared to be a single issue voter, and only when more voters signal such, will the other candidates see the light.
I have joined the Cruz campaign(a first for me, as I am basically non- political…or at least was) as a financial supporter and a volunteer.
I urge others who see this as a transformative issue to line up behind someone who will derail this headlong rush to dismantle our economy and give away the store.
I know Cruz will.
Who else?
Several in the junior debate declared support for CAGW, as did Christy.
Can anyone else list the positions of the others on climate?

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 29, 2015 7:45 pm
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 31, 2015 8:50 am

Dalquist:
It seems that some of the candidates actually believe in CAGW and are supporting renewables. I am disappointed that these candidates have not been more well informed of the issues.
Jim McGinn:
Personally, I don’t believe any candidate, regardless of party, genuinely believes in AGW. I think they all realize that if you want to get elected it’s best to not stand in opposition to any religious belief.

Reply to  tomwys1
October 28, 2015 11:35 pm

I feel so violated after listening to both party’s in the U.S. that it want’s to make me scream off the roof tops ! Stop the nonsense, it’s about control. And with the help from everyone that is not a dope(APGW)person we can get over it!Lean on the people by your vote. Bring into question “global warming” anytime,anywhere,because you know the truth!Say No to higher taxes to fight this “supposed problem” and get on with the job that people put you in place for.Has anything been fixed yet?Social security,medicare,unemployment? Although, just look at the danger we’re in “if we don’t wok fast”Punch line-we are getting screwed!
Love to everyone that believes!

GoatGuy
October 28, 2015 12:43 pm

Woot… Waterloo!

Leonard Lane
Reply to  GoatGuy
October 28, 2015 3:11 pm

Neither this Congress nor the one elected in 2012 (some new senators came on board too) has shown no inclination, and no practical efforts, to do anything except what Obama had asked. What reason do we have to expect that this time will be different? And, IRS stood firm, Congress demanded, FBI investigated, and no charges were brought. The Republican Leadership in the House and Senate will continue to do everything Obama wants. They are nothing more than a weak appendage of Obama and the Democrat leadership.
Seems to me that Karl and Peterson have nothing to lose by defying the House and everything to gain by pleasing Obama.

vlparker
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 3:38 pm

Totally agree. The GOP are a bunch of eunuchs.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 3:50 pm

Karl and Peterson would have everything to gain if they could show their honesty and integrity. But it appears the evidence would show otherwise, so they must refuse any FOIA or congressional requests. Their obstruction will have nothing but negative consequences. Hopefully we will have another whistle blower like climate-gate.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 4:18 pm

I call them ‘CryptoCrats.’

MarkW
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Anyone doubting that, should look at the recently passed budget deal. Obama got about 110% of what he demanded.

JimB
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 5:12 pm

“no inclination” should be “any inclination”.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 5:57 pm

The difference between “Demicans” and “Republocrats”.. is..
They both want to steal more of your money, and they both want to steal more of your rights.
The only difference is, they argue about what to spend the money on, and what right to steal next.
Remember, the Boston Tea Party (BTP) was about a 3% tax.
[[The astute reader might reply.. No, the BTP was about ‘taxation without representation’. Witness the electoral college, and entire states being carried by either a Democan or a Republicrat. I’ve never voted for either. Where is my representation?]]

Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 6:43 pm

I am almost speechless. Government contracts require contractors to reveal everything; but government bureaucrats who write and sign those same contracts feel they have no obligation to do the same.
Isn’t the Obama administration supposed to be the most “transparent” in history? Guess you have to define transparency. One way glass with the mirror on the public side. Transparent in only one direction.

Catcracking
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 28, 2015 8:01 pm

Leonard, Sorry, I think you underestimate the success that a Republican congress has had to slow down the agenda of the Administration on climate change, regulations, carbon tax, exposing the crimes of the IRS, exposing the EPA administrator and now initiating action against NOAA. Many of us would like more action but it become difficult with the complicit MSM and a DOJ that will not prosecute any crimes by Democrats unless they criticize any action by the Administration: e.g. Senator Menendez from NJ. Check how many court cases they lost taking actions beyond the authority of the executive branch
Remember the last time the Democrats had total control they pushed through Obamacre without one R vote.
Think where we would be if we still had a Democrat controlled congress, any worse off?
I do strongly wish the Congress could do a lot more.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 29, 2015 6:10 am

X100

MarkW
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 29, 2015 6:19 am

The difference between Republicans and Democrats:
Democrats want big govt.
Republicans want big govt to be efficient.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Leonard Lane
October 29, 2015 9:58 pm

@MarkW
My view is that on a national level, the only difference is the speed at which the handcart is headed to hell.

Reply to  GoatGuy
October 28, 2015 5:50 pm

The remedy is a simple rule for govt. money: if you take the money, all your data and communications are public.

Reply to  donmgibson
October 28, 2015 6:03 pm

Correct.
Even in private industry, there has never been an illusion that any email I send from my work account was in any way private, or, protected.
C’mon Obummer, admit that global warming does not exist. Admit that the periods of Medieval, Roman, Minoan, and the Holocene Optimum were all warmer than now. Admit that the Eocene was warmer than the Holocene. C’mon, dude. Speak no longer with forked tongue.

Hivemind
Reply to  donmgibson
October 28, 2015 11:00 pm

” if you take the money, all your data and communications are public”
But they’re saving the planet. Obviously they are above those little things like probity and integrity.
Our (& Congress’) role is to give them more money. Then think what they’re told to think. The Australian National University (ANU) recently had a very illuminating advertising campaign: “Joint the thought police”. Actually they said thought leader, but I kept reading thought police. Certainly that is how I think they meant it before they sanitized it for public consumption.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  donmgibson
October 28, 2015 11:38 pm

At Catcracking. Well I guess we agree to disagree. I don’t think we would be much worse off under a Democrat controlled Congress. When the Republican leadership in the House and Senate give Obama everything he demands I don’t see much difference.
Every Republican in the House and Senate leadership promised the country to get rid of Obamacare, control illegal immigration, reduce deficit spending, etc., etc. when campaigning for the 2010,2012, and 2014 and after they were elected did exactly the opposite of what they promised. Then to grind it into our face, when Boehner was run out as Speaker, what do they do? They let Paul Ryan make the Republicans accept his conditions before he would run. Instead of fighting those ridiculous conditions, the Republicans accepted them and them make him Speaker. A bad business all the way around. Being” big government” supporters, does not show they are different than the Democrats.

rtj1211
Reply to  donmgibson
October 29, 2015 2:44 am

My experience has always been that the private sector believe that hacking public sector computers is fair game. Whereas the public sector see it as a way of avoiding consultancy fees.
The question you should be asking is whether all computers have wireless transmitters meaning that even if you keep a computer away from the internet from day 1 of its existence, the spooks and hackers can still get access to your private work.
Osama bin Laden was on the money where privacy was concerned – he did all his business inside a deep cave in Tora Bora, free of the CIA satellites!!

MarkW
Reply to  donmgibson
October 29, 2015 6:21 am

Under Democrats, the country is racing towards a cliff at 100mph.
The Republicans promise to slow us down to 90mph.

Reply to  donmgibson
October 29, 2015 3:50 pm

I though we call that the Freedom of Information Act

Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.
The FOIA also requires agencies to proactively post online certain categories of information, including frequently requested records. As Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have all recognized, the FOIA is a vital part of our democracy.
What is the Administration’s FOIA Policy and Who Oversees the FOIA?
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have directed agencies to apply a presumption of openness in responding to FOIA requests. Attorney General Holder emphasized that the President has called on agencies to work in a spirit of cooperation with FOIA requesters. The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice oversees agency compliance with these directives and encourages all agencies to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the FOIA.
What is FOIA?

Crustacean
October 28, 2015 12:45 pm

They have made “adjustments” so blatantly self-serving and indefensible that even a Member of Congress can see through them, and dare not allow their methods to be examined.

Paul Westhaver
October 28, 2015 12:45 pm

What a couple of sanctimonious putzes. They want to change the world’s economy and all of human behavior but their data can’t stand up to review by a political opponent?
If they won’t show the data, then the data doesn’t exist, therefore; their self-doubts don’t exist, therefore; they can use RICO to prosecute non compliant skeptics.
What utter @sses.
Karl and Peterson. You are UNSCIENTIFIC propagandist liars.

Paul
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 28, 2015 1:26 pm

“They want to change…”
They where told to change…”. When the boss says jump.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 28, 2015 6:47 pm

Reading is fundamental. They’re not refusing to show data and methods, they’re refusing to show communications between the researchers. There’s a difference. I’m not advocating their refusal, they clearly have no claim of confidentiality, but your rant is unfounded as written.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 10:19 pm

OK…
cut “data”…replace “conspiracy about their data”
Fair enough. Is my rant ok now?

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 10:54 pm

I think the quote for the subpoena is “He issued a subpoena for communications among the scientists and some data, leading…” so…”data” is fine. After all, this brief comment is in context to above posting. I am not writing a paper.
Besides, it is Clayton, a spokeswoman spin doctor who claimed that data and methods NOT all data and NOT ALL methods were provided. Clayton is full of cr@p. So, the slime balls have held back data and their methods because some of their methods are in their conspiracy.
My rant stands.
Reading and UNDERSTANDING is fundamental.

Hivemind
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 11:02 pm

If you recall Cimategate 1 & 2, a lot of critical insight into the thinking of these people is found in the candid communications they exchanged. Karl & Peterson presumably know that they are vulnerable to having their true motives disclosed and that they have something to fear.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 11:51 pm

Reply.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 11:57 pm

Reading and UNDERSTANDING is fundamental.
It is the spokeswoman who, of course, has made the claim that some data and methods were provided not ALL data and ALL methods, those in particular that contributed to the fudging of the results. There is more data. There are more methods… the sleaze methods in particular, and there are the Hillary-esque a la Climategate data files, emails, computer programs, all that BS that happens behind the scenes.
I am not taking the word of Ciaran Clayton.

David A
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 29, 2015 1:53 am

There claim was that not revealing emails which did not have data would protect the science. (Insane, science is always protected by full disclosure.) An email saying, we need more warming here, and more cooling in the past, would protect the science, by exposing the bias. Paris will be here and gone long before we get all the info. Benghazi is what, two years old, and we still do not have all the communication, and still have not interviewed most of the personnel on the ground.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 29, 2015 10:44 am

David..exactly.

Tim F in Boise
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 30, 2015 1:14 pm

Jeff you are wrong. If they used government emails, even if responding to a private email that if open to FOIA. In addition if they used or set up a private email to evade FOIA that is also not only open to FOIA but also criminal charges.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 29, 2015 6:11 am

It’s not that it CAN’T stand up…it doesn’t NEED to stand up to it.
And that’s the whole problem.

MCourtney
October 28, 2015 12:51 pm

If there’s another Climategate style leak that discloses the discussions before this paper…
And if those discussions did reveal a bias towards an intended result…
Well, we can dream.

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  MCourtney
October 28, 2015 1:39 pm

If the comments made by the NOAA spokesperson have been reported accurately they have shades of the apparent comments said to have been made to an Australian climate scientist in 2004 by Professor Phil Jones:
‘Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.’
Is withholding information in this manner a normal response by others in different fields being questioned by this type of US committee?
Tonyb

Reply to  climatereason
October 28, 2015 1:58 pm

MC and CR, I just did a little brushup on the Congressional committee’s options. Failure of NOAA to comply with a proper Congressional committee investigatiin subpoena is contempt of congress, 2USCA198. First, was the subpoena proper. Smith’s commitee has oversight of science and technology. This is their turf. Second, consequences. Contemptmof congress is criminal, and each act thereof is punishable by a $1000 fine AND 12 months imprinsonment. Now the question is only how many acts by how many people. Remedy, subpoena the NOAA administrator and each of the Karl and Huang paper co-authors individually. One of Smith’s next likely moves, now that he knows NOAA has something to hide.

Reply to  climatereason
October 28, 2015 2:33 pm

Correction. 2USC192, not 198.

Reply to  climatereason
October 28, 2015 2:50 pm

ristvan, given that the facts are as you say, It still takes a Department of Justice official action to do anymore than slap them on the wrist. They could be hauled in front of the Committee, take the Fifth, and nothing more will happen to them before March of 2017 at the earliest.
Such is the state of the State in the United States.

Reply to  climatereason
October 28, 2015 3:15 pm

Interesting read on the topic of Congressional subpoena powers:
https://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/ec1203b2-a787-44ac-8344-5d5fab374ffa/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/11509b8b-df81-4db6-9e89-1d1b16c20856/White-Paper-Congressional-Subpoena.pdf
Money Quote:

Indeed, in the entire history of American jurisprudence, courts have sought to limit congressional investigations in only a handful of cases and, there, only in the face of blatant constitutional violations.

Side note: One of the co-authors is former Congressman Dave McIntosh, now heading the Club for Growth.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  climatereason
October 28, 2015 4:09 pm

Of course the sergeant at arms can just be sent to collect both them and the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_Senate
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/10/gop-congressman-we-just-filed-a-resolution-directing-the-sergeant-at-arms-to-arrest-lois-lerner-for-contempt/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/04/house_arrest.html
I have included example by both camps.
Congress passes laws, the obligation of seeing that they are enforced is delegated to them. A spending bill that includes funds for NOAA is A LAW! NOAA is accountable to Congress and congress is accountable to “US”
Let them cool their heels in a cell until they comply
michael duhancik

Editor
October 28, 2015 12:52 pm

Anthony writes, “…Peterson’s response was to give the email to wackadoodle climate blogger Miriam O’Brien (aka Sou Bundanga)…”
Wackadoodle is an excellent choice of words.

Dahlquist
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 28, 2015 1:11 pm

That should be spelled “Whackadoodle”.

Paul
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 28, 2015 1:29 pm

I dunno, seems to fit?
US informal
adjective: wack
1.bad; inferior.
“a wack radio station”
noun: wack; plural noun: wacks
1.a crazy or eccentric person.
2.worthless or stupid ideas, work, or talk; rubbish.
Urban dictionary goes further.

David Sivyer
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 28, 2015 9:15 pm

Quackadoodle, anyone?

Chris
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 28, 2015 2:35 pm

If his intention was to cause embarrassment you would have thought that he would have passed it on somewhere where it would be seen by more than a handful of people.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 28, 2015 3:33 pm

I think “Slandering Sou” is more accurate, but Whackadoodle is quite apropos for that “utter nutter” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/20/hotwhoppers-miriam-obrien-hoisted-by-her-own-petard/

Reply to  jim Steele
October 28, 2015 6:15 pm

Nit: That is “hoist by her own petard”. See:
http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/hoisted-by-ones-own-petard.2232180/

Jeremy Poynton
October 28, 2015 12:53 pm

“At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. ”
Well, that’s correct. Over 18 years now.

Reply to  Jeremy Poynton
October 28, 2015 6:16 pm

Lol. Correct. 18 yrs, 8 to 9 months, depending on how you choose to split the gnat’s behind.

Tom in Florida
October 28, 2015 12:53 pm

So if the study is over and the results published, why wouldn’t they release all the documents asked for? How many times must we go through this. Perhaps an elimination of tax payer funding would loosen up their files.

ShrNfr
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 28, 2015 12:57 pm

Apparently, what they are most objecting to is any of their communications prior to the release of the paper. I hear the bearings on the SSD starting to fail now.

Tom T
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 28, 2015 1:17 pm

If you dont want your work e-mails public then dont work for the public. You would be hard pressed to find anyone in the professional world public or private who does not know that e-mails to government employees on government servers are public record.

ShrNfr
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 28, 2015 1:34 pm

It goes beyond government servers. If the email is about their official job, they are obligated to preserve it no matter where it is stored or how it was sent. Of course, that rule has been treated with contempt by the administration, the IRS, and Hillary.

Tom T
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 28, 2015 1:47 pm

The issue NOAA is raising ShrNfr is the the other people in the e-mail conversations have an expectation of confidentiality. Thats bull anyone working in science knows or should know that government e-mails are public and there is no expectation of privacy.

PiperPaul
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 28, 2015 2:52 pm

“Bearings on the SSD”. Ha, that’s a good one!

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 29, 2015 8:01 pm

Sarbox law also requires a lot of non govt email by businesses be kept for years. Lawyers is 7 yrs IIRC.
Failure to comply puts officers of the company in jail. No excuses allowed.
Hospitals have another set of requirements too.

Jim G1
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 28, 2015 1:18 pm

” Perhaps an elimination of tax payer funding would loosen up their files.”
Not much chance of that with the girlie-man wimps we have in the Republican party.

Reed Coray
Reply to  Jim G1
October 28, 2015 8:07 pm

Starting with the Speaker (Crybaby) of the Wimps, John Boehner.

Dahlquist
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 28, 2015 1:22 pm

I think that this kind of crap is why so many U.S. Citizens are becoming so angry with the government. Lies, hiding evidence, the disrespect of the people we elect to office in the Congress and Senate to get the facts for us, the people who pay these Assh*les, who work for us. The IRS scandal, Veterans Affairs, Obamas royal proclamations, Hillarys lies and email hiding, Iran nukes, completely failed foreign policy, etc, etc….
Now NOAA seems to think it is beyond the law and that they do not have to show the work they have been doing for us? I want to see what my tax money has gone into, including e mails, notes and any thing else they did on my dime. Why pay taxes if the organizations we pay for won’t show us the non confidential work they have done?

FTOP_T
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 28, 2015 2:22 pm

The House of Representatives is the people’s house. The money NOAA receives is the people’s money. If you want to conduct your business in the dark, take your own money and start your own business.
The audacity of these gluttons on government cheese is amazing. The fact these democrats refuse to perform their oversight responsibilities enables these pigs at the trough.
This is the travesty of the Clinton server. It’s true purpose was to deny Congressional oversight, which is a violation of the separation of powers. Of course the MSM ignores this fact.

MarkW
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 28, 2015 4:48 pm

Most of the rest of the executive branch has proven that they are above the law over the last 7 years, why should the NOAA be any different?

Catcracking
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 28, 2015 3:24 pm

I suspect we will find that the e mails are on a personal account and the hard drive recently cratered. This is what happens in a corrupt administration from top to bottom.

Felflames
Reply to  Catcracking
October 29, 2015 1:29 am

Data centres are funny things, what people THINK they have permanently deleted, and what they HAVE permanently deleted, are often far different things.

GTL
October 28, 2015 1:03 pm

What a couple of loons. Have they not watched Hilary Clinton trying to keep her email out of the public domain, and the results of that attempt?

Reply to  GTL
October 28, 2015 2:31 pm

They are probably thinking of it it as an example to follow: nothing happened to hilary, nothing is going to happen to her.
Same with the IRS anti-Tea Party jihad: nothing happened to them either – except the main perp whats-her-name got a bonus.
The obama junta protects (and rewards) its own.

Menicholas
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
October 29, 2015 6:51 am

Hillary will be indicted. Wait and see.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
October 29, 2015 8:46 am

Menicholas October 29, 2015 at 6:51 am
Hillary will be indicted. Wait and see.

Do you know something we don’t? The ‘Justice’ Department just declined to prosecute Lois Lerner. Do you think Obama (or Valerie Jarret?) will tell them to indict Hillary? Not likely.
The only way to pry out the emails, data, etc. from NOAA is a FOIA demand. We need someone with contacts inside Landmark Legal Foundation (Mark Levin), or Heartland, or someone else with the budget and the stones for this sort of thing.
/Mr Lynn

john
October 28, 2015 1:04 pm

time to start putting some of these bureaucrats butts in jail.

MarkW
Reply to  john
October 28, 2015 4:49 pm

Like the Obama Justice Dept would actually do that.

October 28, 2015 1:06 pm

Come on, is portraying scientists as children that different?comment image

dsiegel
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 28, 2015 1:22 pm

[Deleted. Fake name. This commenter has been banned repeatedly. ~mod.]

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 28, 2015 2:35 pm

RE: dsiegel
October 28, 2015 at 1:22 pm
**Same it true for this blog**
Maybe the “majority” on WUWT are not scientists, but the sheer numbers of scientists here would vastly out number the scientists on most blogs, especially “skeptical science” where the same few repeat.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
October 28, 2015 4:48 pm

It’s amusing to me that the “dsiegel” sockpuppet (among his two dozen other fake names) just cannot keep from coming back here, even though his comments are quickly eliminated. That boy wastes a lot of effort for no payoff. ☺

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 28, 2015 2:42 pm

RE: dsiegel
October 28, 2015 at 1:22 pm
**Same it true for this blog**
The difference is that the sheer numbers of scientists posting on this blog vastly outnumber those on “skeptical science” where they have the same few posting and we do not know how many are scientists.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 28, 2015 2:44 pm

dsiegel
I think you may be wrong there. As usual for climate morons you have no evidence. Be warned, one of the sceptic sites did a survey of contributers qualifications. Most were equal to or better than any climate criminal’s.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 28, 2015 2:54 pm

Same is true for anybody that calls themselves a meteorologist:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j

BFL
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 28, 2015 3:18 pm

dsiegel:
Please look to right side of this page (says it all):
Unreliable*
Skeptical Science – John Cook
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

davesivyer
Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 28, 2015 9:18 pm

Dead right. Cartoonists working in “science communication”.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 30, 2015 3:02 pm

When when any scientist abandons the Scientific Method, he proves that he’s NOT a scientist. When a layman asks questions,when he seeks measured, empirical data to test what he’s been told, he proves that he IS a scientist.

Reply to  Hans Erren
October 28, 2015 3:35 pm

As far as I know, neither Josh nor Anthony are publishing cartoons on anyone else’s dime except their own. My taxes shouldn’t be going to pay for a supposed “scientist”‘, working for an entirely taxpayer-funded agency, to create political agenda- driven cartoons of any type.
Hans, is this the type “science” you want to pay for? I sure don’t.

Reply to  Hans Erren
October 28, 2015 3:45 pm

Please identify the scientists in Josh’s cartoon, I don’t see any.

Steve Lohr
October 28, 2015 1:06 pm

They can be as hostile as the wish toward Congress but it is the equivalent of a teenager telling mom they “ain’t gonna” well here is the deal: the golden rule applies and Congress has the gold and they will make the rules. This pair is only the tip of the berg in my opinion and the political agenda behind “scientific studies” is becoming all too apparent. These little snot wads can pitch a fit but I am thinking this Congress has had enough. Contempt of Congress, while they may think it cool to their moon bat buddies, isn’t the kind of resume builder I would want in the final years of my career. Game on!

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Steve Lohr
October 28, 2015 10:15 pm

Hopefully Paul Ryan will run a tighter ship in the house.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Steve Lohr
October 29, 2015 8:08 pm

Since the House just passed a 2 year budget growth present, the next window to reduce spending is 2017… Anything else gets a filibuster and veto.

Jim G1
October 28, 2015 1:09 pm

Anthony,
“Skeptics of climate change, including Smith, have cited the pause to insist that increased greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, are not heating up the globe.”
I have not seen statistically reliable proof that “mostly from burning fossil fuels” is an accurate characterization. Is it yours or his?
Jim G1

Reply to  Jim G1
October 28, 2015 6:27 pm

Chances are, most of the ‘new’ CO2 in the atmosphere is from some slight warming in the oceans. The GISS and other ice cores show that CO2 rise lags warming by about 200 to 800 years.
For the scientific minded – do this experiment on your own. Buy two bottles of club soda (CO2 dissolved in H2O). Place one in the fridge, place the other on your kitchen counter (assuming your kitchen counter is warmer than the interior of your fridge).
Crack them both open, vigorously.
Which foams up more, and spills more?
Answer: Cold H20 absorbs more C02 than warm H20. It is quite obvious, that ocean temperatures drive C02, and C02 is only the tail. Before you argue, do the experiment. I have. Physics don’t lie.

GTL
October 28, 2015 1:09 pm

“Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.”
Executive Privilege for Alarmists? A new addendum to the scientific method?

Jack McGrats
October 28, 2015 1:10 pm

Unfortunately, the ‘pubs have demonstrated the unique ability of screwing-up everything. This will be no exception. They are totally worthless.

BBould
October 28, 2015 1:14 pm

“So far” everybody else has gotten away with withholding information from congress during this presidency, why not the NOAA?

E. Martin
October 28, 2015 1:15 pm

Karl and Peterson are Obama’s equivalents of Stalin’s Lysenko.

FTOP_T
Reply to  E. Martin
October 28, 2015 5:42 pm

+1
Although to pick up all the Lysenkoists in Obama’s science brigade, “your going to need a bigger boat.”

JT
October 28, 2015 1:15 pm

Let the hard drive shredding commence.

Craig
October 28, 2015 1:16 pm

Guys,
What’s the penelty for ignoring a subpoena from congress? Monetary fine, jail time?

Reply to  Craig
October 28, 2015 1:22 pm

Jail until compliance is the usual court remedy for this sort of thing.
The UVA Mann ‘confidentiality’ precedent does not apply, as this is a federal institution formally under the jurisdiction of Smith’s committee, doing federally sponsored research.

Craig
Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 1:26 pm

Thanks ristvan,
Sounds like a nasty way to end your career. Intelligent people these two guys may be but unless your name is Hillary, they won’t have the clout to get away with it.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 1:29 pm

Thanks – I was looking for that info. My response: they must be on drugs or something – they clearly believe that they are responsible to no one and no one has a right to check their work.

GTL
Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 1:38 pm

But the US Dept of Justice will have to enforce the subpoena which is not likely to happen. Look at DOJ refusing to prosecute IRS employees targeting conservative organizations and individuals. The prosecutions will lead to the White House and Obama will not let that happen.

Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 2:19 pm

GTL, there is a twist here. Continued failure to comply leads to a Contempt of Congress conviction under 2USC198. Criminal, each act thereof punishable by a $1000 fine and 12 months in prison. See comment upthread. Been the law since 1938. Smith has a number of apparent additional ‘nuclear’ options. For example, NOAA employees are subject to the general records retention and FOIA reqirements applying to all federal (US) employees relating to their work related matters. For NOAA employees, climate data is clearly work related, so all their emails concerning producing the Karl and underlying papers fall under those general requirements also.

Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 2:35 pm

Minor correction. Contempt of Congress is 2USC192, not 198. Just in case anyone wants to read the legal details.

RD
Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 3:41 pm

GTL is correct, sigh.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 4:30 pm

GTL October 28, 2015 at 1:38 pm
But the US Dept of Justice will have to enforce the subpoena which is not likely to happen.
Ah NO. Sergeant at arms for congress. Remember, separation of powers. Bet these two didn’t factor in that.
(Grin, Evil Grin) michael

Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 5:17 pm

Impeachment proceedings have started on the person in charge of IRS, Koskinny or something like that.
The newest Attorney General will think twice about balking Congress during Obama’s final year. Or they’ll be next on the impeachment list.
Removed from office without a golden parachute.
Peterson and Karl are small fry comparatively. Congress and their committees have long memories when some nobody(s) thumb their nose at the committees regarding a investigation.

Renkluaf
Reply to  Craig
October 28, 2015 1:30 pm

@Craig: A bonus and a promotion.

Paul
Reply to  Craig
October 28, 2015 1:32 pm

“What’s the penelty for ignoring a subpoena from congress”
A promotion?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Paul
October 28, 2015 4:37 pm

Penalty = Retirement with full benefits- ala Lois Lerner.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Craig
October 28, 2015 3:22 pm

With this House and Senate Republican leadership there is no penalty, unless of course, if Obama wants it done for some reason, then these wimps and traitors to their promises before the last two elections, will do whatever Obama wants. They are Democrats in sheep’s clothing.

James Strom
Reply to  Craig
October 28, 2015 3:44 pm

Since the committee in question has oversight on the funding for this research there could be serious consequences aside from any penalties. The committee could propose stronger sunshine laws, for example, but it could simply cut funding for work of this type. But of course the committee would have to work with the rest of the Congress on this. In the long run, the very long run, NOAA will suffer for its noncompliance.

October 28, 2015 1:17 pm

Unfortunately for NOAA, ‘scientific confidentiality’ is not legal grounds for rejecting a Congressional subpoena. As Lamar Smith has pointed out.
Those emails were already under a separate preserve documents order from his science oversight committee, so pulling a Lois Lerner leads to worse problems for NOAA.
Karl knows his paper relies on Huang’s published SST revision. And they both know they simply recalculated Kennedy’s SST adjustment published 2011–Huang’s 2015 paper explicitly says so. And they both know they only published their adjustment result matching Kennedy–0.1C–but NOT the associated uncertainty. Kennedy’s paper was 0.1C +/- 1.7C!
Finally, Lamar Smith and his staff know this gross uncertainty in the new adjustment erasingmthe pause was obscured, because my detective work with references was commented to the Climate Etc post on Karl, and forwarded to his committee. The NOAA emails likely will have discussed this uncertainty problem, and probably the explicit decision to hide it in the paper. As well as likely the motivation for the paper in the first place.
ClimateGate 4, if Smith can get Court enforcement of the subpoena fast enough.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ristvan
October 28, 2015 1:54 pm

Tax-payer funded research must be accountable to the oversight from the people’s representative body, i.e. Congress. This is most especially true where very costly public policy actions will be implemented by the executive administration using the research as its scientific basis.
What should also be subject to Congressional Review are the reviewer-referee comments and revision-acceptance recommendations from the Science magazine referee process. The paper’s reviewers can and should remain anonymous, but their comments and would be “enlightening” to see how rigorous a review Science editors subjected the Karl paper to, i.e. was it “pal-review”.
NOAA’s position on this issue is untenable legally. But they know they can get away with it since the DOJ has become a politicized agency as well. The US Attorney General will deal with this like they dealt with the corruption in the IRS and Lois Lerner’s illegal actions that denied US citizen’s their rights, compromised people’s privacy, and used the IRS powers as political weapon.
The next step should be FOIA requests from outsiders like the Heartland Institute and then sue them in federal court when they stonewall the FOIA. This has worked with Hillary Clinton’s email stonewalling by the State Department.

EMyrt
Reply to  ristvan
October 29, 2015 2:12 pm

+5 and thanks for showing some of the work they are hiding.

Ossqss
October 28, 2015 1:17 pm

Watch for the key word soon. Contempt!

October 28, 2015 1:18 pm

Here is the chance for them to show the US Congress the quality of their work. What’s the problem?

October 28, 2015 1:19 pm

I’m just a regular civilian, non-scientist type, but I thought that the way you KEPT scientific integrity was specifically by letting other people see all of the information and processes of your scientific work. That is one of the main pillars of the scientific process.

Paul
Reply to  Jay Turberville
October 28, 2015 1:34 pm

“That is one of the main pillars of the scientific process.”
It is, just not Climate “science”.

observa
Reply to  Paul
October 28, 2015 9:25 pm

Please spell Climate Seance correctly when regular civilian, non-scientists like this drop in lest they be confused about real science.

Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 1:22 pm

Anthony, for non US readers, can you give us some context please
For example, is there a legal requirement to comply with this subpoena. Does this refusal to comply happen often? How are they enforced?

Tom T
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 1:31 pm

Simply put If you work for the government all work e-mails are public records.NOAA’s claim of “confidentiality” is bogus. No reasonable person expect confidentiality when exchanging correspondence with a government employee on a government server. You either know or should know that such communications are public records.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Tom T
October 28, 2015 1:44 pm

I’ve been reading up and as far as I can see there are a few basic requirements, like e.g. the subpoena has to be penitent to the work of the committee, but then contempt of congress proceedings can take place either in congress or via a court.
There appears to be very few ways to get out of a subpoena – particularly when Congress is dominated by the party issuing the subpoena and it seems that usually people eventually comply.

Victoria
Reply to  Tom T
October 28, 2015 1:44 pm

In a sane country, this should be true. Our political/justice leadership has become insane, certainly are not “reasonable” , and those of us that are still reasonable expect nothing to happen to these liars. LIbEralS – LIES.

Reply to  Tom T
October 28, 2015 6:39 pm

Not just government. Any email you send or receive from your employer’s internet access is deemed their property. The position of the accused does not wash. They must produce. That’s why it is called a subpoena.

markl
Reply to  myNym
October 28, 2015 7:15 pm

myNym commented: “…Not just government. Any email you send or receive from your employer’s internet access is deemed their property. …”
Most people don’t understand this. Personal communications are rarely allowed or protected although often accepted out of expedience. Work related telephone, email, and mail are all the property of the government/employer.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Tom T
October 28, 2015 11:53 pm

myNym is correct, and the reason is; If I was to conduct any unsavory business (bribery, blackmail, threats etc.) while using my employer’s computer/server/email accounts, they would be implicated in my unsavory business when the police come knocking. Usually they’ll hand over everything and cooperate with the police investigation, but in the event that they didn’t, they’d be held accountable for damages done by me when using their equipment.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Tom T
October 29, 2015 8:22 pm

@Scottish:
Subpoena, from ‘sub’ meaning below, and ‘poena’ the male parts, synonym being ‘by the balls’…
This committee has direct oversight. The can toss these guys in jail. Of course, Obama can parden them, but that might cause even more trouble…

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 1:49 pm

Generally this kind of position by an agency is a no no. They can invoke Executive Privilege but in this case I can’t imagine it would stick. I hope Congress hangs tough.

GTL
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 1:59 pm

See my comment above. A Congressional Subpoena is enforced by the Department of Justice, ultimately controlled by the President. It could happen if the Attorney General maintains high ethical standards, she has the authority. Given the outcome of the IRS investigation our Attorney General does not appear ethical, more a political hack of the Administration. Forcing action will require a great deal of external political pressure. Democrats are already crying foul.

Reply to  GTL
October 28, 2015 2:40 pm

The NOAA emails can also be gotten via FOIA. A S&T committee staffer can submit such a request. Rep. Smith has a number of options depending on his political objectives. He has said he plans to use them all.

GTL
Reply to  GTL
October 29, 2015 9:45 am

@ristvan
Thanks ristvan, I did not consider FOIA. It worked in getting at Hilary Clinton’s emails. Hope it does not take as long.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 4:37 pm

Scottish Sceptic
Yes
yes
as to enforced
Mike the Morlock October 28, 2015 at 4:09 pm
Of course the sergeant at arms can just be sent to collect both them and the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_Senate
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/10/gop-congressman-we-just-filed-a-resolution-directing-the-sergeant-at-arms-to-arrest-lois-lerner-for-contempt/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/04/house_arrest.html
I have included example by both camps.
Congress passes laws, the obligation of seeing that they are enforced is delegated to them. A spending bill that includes funds for NOAA is A LAW! NOAA is accountable to Congress and congress is accountable to “US”
Let them cool their heels in a cell until they comply
michael duhancik
i hate quoting myself but…
miky

Ric Haldane
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
October 28, 2015 7:30 pm

Miky, Congress passes laws. The Executive branch ( president) is supposed to enforce the laws. The Supreme interprets the laws. So says the US Constitution, as opposed the the Constitutional scholar sitting in the White House.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 7:27 pm

If these bloggers are correct then the rule of law is abrogated.
There is no separation of powers.
In Australia this would lead to a challenge based on the Constitution.
This would force the Government department to produce the evidence.
It would force the authority issuing the subpoena to act.

TonyL
October 28, 2015 1:31 pm

Time for popcorn!
The fun move would be for Rep. Smith to answer the refusal with a congressional subpoena. The stakes go up hugely for Karl and Peterson to continue to refuse. The only way out would be for the White House to issue an executive order claiming executive privilege. The basis for such a claim would have to be that President Obama took time off from the golf course to become directly involved in the deliberations concerning the production of the paper. This of course, implies that Obama should have been listed as a coauthor.
On the other hand, they may be banking on the fact that in this administration, nobody has been held accountable for anything. Karl and Peterson may be hoping to pull a “Lois Lerner” or maybe even a “Hillary Clinton”. Hard drives melting down in 3, 2, 1 …

Reply to  TonyL
October 28, 2015 2:29 pm

TonyL, he asked when issued a documents retention order. When NOAA stonewalled, he issued a subpoena. This is already refusal to comply with a Congressional investigation subpoena. Quite serious, as now involves contempt of congress.

Reply to  TonyL
October 28, 2015 2:38 pm

The order not to comply most likely came from the President (Obama).

carbon bigfoot
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 28, 2015 5:19 pm

FLASH: BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY ON THE NAT. GEO CHANNEL SUNDAY NIGHT ON A CLIMATE CHANGE SPECIAL. LET’S FLOOD THE DISCOVERY, NAT. GEO, DIRECTV, COMCAST AND OTHERS, COMPLAINING ABOUT THE BIAS OF THE PROGRAM. CAN SOMEONE FIND OUT WHO THE SPONSORS ARE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY OF NYE.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 28, 2015 7:09 pm

CB, how about staying on-topic…

Tucci78
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 9:56 pm

To another comment’s speculation that “The order [for NCDC/NCEI’s Karl and Peterson] not to comply most likely came from the President (Obama),” at 7:09 PM on 28 October, Mr. Alberts admonishes:

“…how about staying on-topic…”

How is it that a pair of federal employees – Karl and Peterson – subject to the executive branch chain of command could be presumed to act in flagrantly overt defiance of the Congress without sanction (or direction) from higher-up?
Familiar with that homely little sign Harry S Truman used to keep on the Resolute desk about where the buck stops?
Or is that not a “topic” to Mr. Alberts’ taste?

leafwalker
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 29, 2015 7:47 am

Tucci78, Jeff Alberts’ comment asking “carbon bigfoot” to stay on topic, not J. Philip Peterson.

601nan
October 28, 2015 1:33 pm

Woops! Wonder if a Contempt of Congress will be issued.
From Wikipedia: “Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of documents.”

Tucci78
October 28, 2015 1:36 pm

The purpose of the Karl et al. paper was to erase the pause, clearly a political move, and one that is already backfiring in the scientific arena as noted climatologist Gerald Meehl has made some pushback against their politically based science.

Is it possible to treat anything “politically based” – i.e., advanced purely to push a political agenda – “science” in any sense of the word?

There is nothing a priori in science. Science does not have foregone conclusions. Scientists must be open to *any* conclusion supported by logic and evidence. Once again, there is no place for politics (or anything else) in science, only logic and evidence. The quality of science – the distinction between “good science” and “bad science” – does not depend on its conclusions but on the logic and evidence supporting them. No scientific conclusions can be good or bad, sexist, racist, offensive, reactionary, or dangerous; they can only be true or false. No other adjectives apply.
— Satoshi Kanazawa (19 December 2010)

PaulH
October 28, 2015 1:41 pm

I find it bizarre that here, midway through the second decade of the 21st Century, there are people who think their work email and other work documents are their own personal property.

Reply to  PaulH
October 28, 2015 7:41 pm

@PaulH
Yeah. Many many years ago I was responsible for the implementation of employment contracts for all our company employees that involved just a few hundred people … but those forms made it extremely clear (and the law was/is clear) that anything produced in a company office, using company equipment, or on company business of any kind was the property of the company and was NOT confidential, including personal diaries.
I just don’t get this stonewalling. I am surprised there aren’t more whistle blowers. Guess we’ll see.

Curious George
October 28, 2015 1:41 pm

The integrity of a scientific process is and should remain confidential.
Where did we get in 2015? Feels more like 1015.

Reply to  Curious George
October 28, 2015 3:34 pm

Curious George:
The integrity of the scientific process is precisely what is at issue in this situation. However, it is quite possible that science’s integrity may not be threatened by the Congressional subpoena so much as strengthened by it.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Curious George
October 28, 2015 6:59 pm

Curious George,
Do you even know what “integrity” and “confidential” mean? What you basically said is that the honesty or completeness (depending on how you use the word “integrity”) of a scientific process should remain secret. The scientific process only works when it is transparent, not secret, especially when it is paid for with public money. If you don’t understand that, you are a dolt.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 28, 2015 7:33 pm

Don’t know about being a dolt, but one would think that if a scientist believed he had found a new mechanism to explain the Pause or thought that none was needed, he would be shouting from the roof tops
“look at Me ,You were wrong, look see my evidence”

Bulldust
Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 28, 2015 11:09 pm

I still can’t get over the multiple adjustments these people make to temperature sets often with no knowledge of the station’s history. That’s even assuming that thermometer stations and ocean measurements are vaguely representative of what’s happening on a global scale. I am astounded that “scientists” tweak, twerk and torture the data into statistics and then pretend they have any meaing whatsoever.
If the raw data aren’t good enough, then your measurements are the problem. Statistical torturing of said erroneous data cannot “improve” the data, except for political purposes. Might as well go back to reading animal entrails… the scientific rigor is equivalent.
From a pragmatic point of view, these guys will undoubtedly resist exposure until the Parasite convention is over.

October 28, 2015 1:41 pm

Does anyone else have that image in their mind of Laurel and Hardy standing there with the obese pontification to the skinny guilt ridden “Now look! What a fine kettle of fish you got me into”

Resourceguy
October 28, 2015 1:41 pm

Refused on standing orders from the climate boss in the WH no doubt.

Resourceguy
October 28, 2015 1:45 pm

They might have received a question that could force them to plead the 5th and that in itself would look bad. As in the case of Lois Lerner at IRS, such pleading generates more questions in a wider investigation.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 28, 2015 4:44 pm

Of course a promise of immunity can be issued, then they must comply.
Of course “pressing” isn’t allowed anymore ….Bummer…
michael

Louis
October 28, 2015 1:48 pm

“There is no truth to the claim that the study was politically motivated or conducted to advance an agenda.”
If you have that much confidence in your motives and methods, why not release the documents and emails that could prove you right? What are you trying to cover up?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Louis
October 28, 2015 7:13 pm

“If you have that much confidence in your motives and methods, why not release the documents and emails that could prove you right? What are you trying to cover up?”
Invalid response. I may have nothing to hide, but that doesn’t mean I want the government searching my house whenever they want. Again, I’m not advocating the actions of NOAA, I’m pointing out that your response is absurd. Like asking when you stopped beating your wife.

markl
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 7:24 pm

Jeff Alberts commented: “…Invalid response. I may have nothing to hide, but that doesn’t mean I want the government searching my house whenever they want. ”
Bad spin. They are asking to search a government owned email address and government owned data. There should be nothing ‘personal’ there. In fact, they shouldn’t even have to “ask” to do it!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 7:42 pm

Markl, I wasn’t speaking to the government aspect of it, I was responding to the “if you have nothing to hide…” response. It’s never a valid response, no matter what you think of the accused. Of course they should follow the law.

Tucci78
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 10:13 pm

I may have nothing to hide, but that doesn’t mean I want the government searching my house whenever they want. Again, I’m not advocating the actions of NOAA, I’m pointing out that your response is absurd. Like asking when you stopped beating your wife.

No, the questions to which this response is made – “If you have that much confidence in your motives and methods, why not release the documents and emails that could prove you right? What are you trying to cover up?” – are emphatically notabsurd” when it’s borne in mind that Karl and Peterson are employees of federal government agencies who had undertaken work for which they were PAID out of the public purse, using material and human resources also funded by the taxpayers.
All products of their work were, ab ovo, the property of the U.S. federal government and subject to examination by the federal legislature exercising the powers delineated in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. House of Representatives, as the body responsible for funding everything done by NOAA, is duty-bound to scrutinize all operations conducted and all expenditures made by the officers of that agency.
This inescapably involves the investigation and remediation of misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of those officers.
Remember: “Thou shalt not commit adultery on company time or furniture.”

Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 1:48 pm

It seems to me this is an assertion that “Science is more important than democracy or accountability”.
They are in effect challenging the authority of Congress and stating that “we as scientists are in charge”.
I would be surprised if that wins them any friends either on the Republican or democrat benches.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 28, 2015 7:45 pm

Scottish Sceptic: Wait …. I thought Science WAS in charge. Didn’t Eisenhower warn us about that? Oh, let me think about that. If Science WAS in charge, then they would follow the scientific method and provide all the information. I think I just went into a Catch 22 do loop.

Patrick B
October 28, 2015 1:50 pm

I see less and less reason for any government agency other than the Defense Department, the CIA and the IRS to have closed servers. There should be no reason the rest of the government servers are not open for viewing at all times and a rule that using any private communications network for government business is a federal crime.

Curious George
October 28, 2015 1:50 pm

Dr. Tom Peterson would rather share his secrets with Miriam O’Brien than with the Congress. Let’s hope Miriam O’Brien has sufficient means to fund this “research”, involving an industrial-scale manufacturing of data (aka “adjustments”.)

October 28, 2015 1:52 pm

The very first tranche of emails reviewed from Hillary’s personal email server contained four documents classified as TS/SCI/NOFORN. About as classified as it gets. That’s secrets about secrets. Had you or I done that, we’d still be wearing steel bracelets.
Do you think, really, really think, that they will pay any price at all for this?

JimB
Reply to  TomB
October 28, 2015 5:27 pm

And Petraeus only told his girl friend.

Resourceguy
October 28, 2015 1:54 pm

It’s time to destroy another email server in another agency. Such is the routine in the new improved open government.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 28, 2015 2:13 pm

Transparency in government… just as if they’re ghosts!

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 29, 2015 12:06 am

Re; open government: “The directives I am giving my administration today on how to interpret the FOI act, will do just that”. Obama.

Dawtgtomis
October 28, 2015 1:59 pm

Ironic, Peterson’s political playtime picture only shows the tip of an iceberg.

Bruce Cobb
October 28, 2015 2:04 pm

Wait, you haven’t heard of “scientific privelege”?
Neither have I.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 28, 2015 2:53 pm

Laugh every time reread that, bruce.
Reminds me of the luxury rides cruising in St. Louis with “CLERGY” signs in their windshields.

Rico L
October 28, 2015 2:09 pm

I no longer believe in the pause, it seems more like a reversal to me now.

Paddylol
October 28, 2015 2:10 pm

Rep Smith should introduce a bill that defunds appropriate NOAA programs ASAP.

Reply to  Paddylol
October 28, 2015 6:53 pm

s/appropriate/all/
There, fixed that for you.

Robert Grumbine
Reply to  myNym
October 31, 2015 6:32 pm

Right, who needs weather information and forecasts.

prjindigo
October 28, 2015 2:15 pm

One does NOT conduct science in an “objective” manner, one does it in a SCIENTIFIC manner.

James at 48
October 28, 2015 2:26 pm

MSM are characterizing it as a witch hunt by “GOP Denialists” and many average people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. There needs to be better PR from the skeptic side. Current PR is a failure.

MarkW
Reply to  James at 48
October 28, 2015 4:59 pm

PR’s tough, when the other side owns all the presses.

Reply to  MarkW
October 28, 2015 6:55 pm

We (aka Antho-knee) own this one.

Richard M
Reply to  James at 48
October 28, 2015 8:09 pm

Not as far I as can see. The only ones falling for that nonsense are already dyed in the wool true believers.

October 28, 2015 2:34 pm

There is little hope of anything coming of this since the President can protect these people. Can congress do anything about that? ONLY if they are willing to impeach and then convict: and the congress critters are not so willing. Heck, the president can invade a foreign country at will and the congress will do nothing about it.
Sadly, the skeptical side has the physics that shows this is all BS, but this is not a scientific debate it is a political war. The modern “liberals” are winning. I expect some evil to come out of Paris.
~ Mark

Stephen Richards
Reply to  markstoval
October 28, 2015 2:52 pm

I’m with you on this Mark

RD
Reply to  markstoval
October 28, 2015 3:44 pm

Mark – well said.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  markstoval
October 28, 2015 4:43 pm

“I expect some evil to come out of Paris.”
“Prof. Dr H. Stephen Schneider, lead author in Working Group II of the IPCC (said in 1989): ‘For these reasons we have to announce terrifying scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements with no mention of any doubts whatever which we might have. In order to attract attention, we need dramatic statements leaving no doubt about what is said. Every one of us researchers must decide how far he would want to be honest rather than effective.”
In an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
United Nations Framework convention on climate change:
“Climate finance refers to local, national or transnational financing, which may be drawn from public, private and alternative sources of financing. Climate finance is critical to addressing climate change because large-scale investments are required to significantly reduce emissions, notably in sectors that emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. Climate finance is equally important for adaptation, for which significant financial resources will be similarly required to allow countries to adapt to the adverse effects and reduce the impacts of climate change.”
How on earth is United Nations expecting to avoid claims from nations that damages by bad weather, natural variation, natural climate cycles or lasting dire conditions are caused by climate change? How on earth can United Nations avoid increased energy poverty?
United Nations is far out of line with its charter. United nations were supposed to:
– To maintain international peace and security…
– To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples …
– To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
– To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
United Nations has itself become a great international problem of an economic and cultural character.

JimB
Reply to  Science or Fiction
October 28, 2015 5:30 pm

The US needs to defund the UN even if this requires our withdrawal from the organization. Let the progs finance it.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Science or Fiction
October 29, 2015 4:30 pm

“… Every one of us researchers must decide how far he would want to be honest rather than effective.”
If you’re going to quote that paragraph, quote it all, or show the ellipsis.
“…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Emphasis added.)

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Juan Slayton
October 31, 2015 5:17 am

Thanks for correcting this. I took this quote from a comment at a blog without checking.

Joe Bastardi
October 28, 2015 2:35 pm

I suspect they will force congresses hand as they will be martyrs for the cause. You know what the best thing about what I do is. You cant run from a forecast. Think about that. The weather will always give you the answer. These guys think they have free reign to reconstruct the past according to what they believe, but they never are held accountable, no one has ever stood up to them and said you might be wrong. If forecasting, no such luxury. The crucible of private sector forecast is be right or perish. Quite a difference from publish or perish. Of course the danger is over-reach and lumping all research into one pile. We must be vigilant against that

Reply to  Joe Bastardi
October 28, 2015 3:09 pm

JB:
“You cant run from a forecast.”
http://wp.me/p4JijN-78
Watch Joe run.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 4:37 pm

How about we forecast the mudslides that derail trains or wash out highways first, then work on the next 100 years of such events.
It would give the engineers a heads up.

pbweather
Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 7:19 pm

I am relatively new to WUWT blogs, and I guess I have to be impressed that Anthony tolerates comments from all sectors of the community so as to be seen to “not exclude people” who may have alternative views. However, I am guessing people already know that you are posting absolute unsubstantiated drivel. (I looked at that link and list of claims about what is misunderstood about convection/tornadoes and all of these have been well answered and tested and are used successfully in forecasting now.) It is mind blowing that you have these thoughts and I can only assume you have some sort of pathological hatred of Meteorologists for some reason. Were you rejected from Met school or by the NWS or something?

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 8:04 pm

Watch Joe learn from the results too. At least he doesn’t have a zero batting average so far like the bigshots in climate science.

Robert B
Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 9:09 pm

I’m just a chemist but that site seemed a little bizarre.
“turns out its not, moist air is heavier, not lighter than dry air”
“12) They can’t explain why severe weather, especially tornadoes, involves “clash of dry winds with moist winds.” (Why does it matter than one body of air must be dry and the other must be moist to cause tornadoes? [why are there no tornadoes when both are dry or both are moist?] Might this be a clue to something yet undiscovered?)”
Basic chemistry suggests that with the same amount of gas molecules (n) that the more humid air would be less dense as the water molecules have about 2/3 of the molar mass of N2.
Any condensation would reduce the density of the parcel of air (amount of gas drops and it takes time to be squeezed by in-rushing air) plus a lot of heat from the condensation keeping the pressure up gives you a lot of up lift. Someone with the right back ground could set you straight better than myself, but my two cents worth would be that cooling dry air is more likely to be denser than cooling moist air and a big difference means quite a lot of vertical movement before the air mixes.

Editor
Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 29, 2015 6:25 am

I’d run from that web site too. https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/government-tornado-researchers-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know-about-what-they-dont-know/ – looks like only one fool replied to that post, and that’s me.
I don’t understand the JB connection there, I don’t see any. Why did you post that link?

Editor
Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 29, 2015 6:28 am

Oh, it may be your site. Why don’t say so in https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/about/ ?

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 29, 2015 12:06 pm

Robert B:
Basic chemistry suggests that with the same amount of gas molecules (n) that the more humid air would be less dense as the water molecules have about 2/3 of the molar mass of N2.
JM:
Well, I’m a little slow, so thank you for keeping it basic.
Robert B:
Any condensation would reduce the density of the parcel of air (amount of gas drops and it takes time to be squeezed by in-rushing air)
JM:
I have a couple of questions for you:
1) In your chemistry classes did they ever teach you that the boiling point of H2O is 100 C at 1 ATM of pressure?
2) Have you heard of ideal gas laws and Avogadro’s law?
3) Did you know that H2O is not an ideal gas at temperatures below its boiling point?
Robert B:
plus a lot of heat from the condensation keeping the pressure up gives you a lot of up lift.
JM:
Hmm. I wonder why the people that use hot air balloons haven’t figured this out and, for some odd reason, don’t bring humidifiers with them on their cross country trips? Hmm.
Robert B:
Someone with the right back ground could set you straight better than myself,
JM:
I’ve been looking for this person for 20 years now. This person seems to be more elusive than DB Cooper. But at least they have a sketch of DB Cooper. And a name. I can’t tell you how many meteorologists have told me of this person. Like yourself, however, they failed to get a name.
But I know this person must be out there somewhere. After all, how could thousands of meteorologists possibly be wrong?
Robert B:
but my two cents worth would be that cooling dry air is more likely to be denser than cooling moist air and a big difference means quite a lot of vertical movement before the air mixes.
JM:
Well, I’m a scientist. So my standards are somewhat different. Are you a meteorologist?

Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 29, 2015 9:30 pm

Oh, it may be your site. Why don’t say so in https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/about/ ?
It matters? Why?

Reply to  James McGinn
October 31, 2015 9:28 am

If you don’t think that fact matters, you don’t understand human nature.

Robert B
Reply to  Jim McGinn
November 2, 2015 2:09 am

“1) In your chemistry classes did they ever teach you that the boiling point of H2O is 100 C at 1 ATM of pressure?”
So there can’t be water vapour below 100°C?
“2) Have you heard of ideal gas laws and Avogadro’s law?”
P∝T as well as n so what point are you trying to make?
“3) Did you know that H2O is not an ideal gas at temperatures below its boiling point?”
Its not above either and neither is N2. Did you have a point?
“Well, I’m a scientist. So my standards are somewhat different. Are you a meteorologist?”
A chemist is a scientist. What have you been sniffing?

Reply to  Jim McGinn
November 3, 2015 8:04 am

Robert B November 2, 2015 at 2:09 am
JM:
“1) In your chemistry classes did they ever teach you that the boiling point of H2O is 100 C at 1 ATM of pressure?”
RB:
So there can’t be water vapour below 100°C?
JM:
Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It consists of miniature droplets suspended in air. But not gaseous H2O. Our atmosphere is too cool for steam.
RB:
P∝T as well as n so what point are you trying to make?
JM:
Your conclusions (above) that you say are based on “basic chemistry,” are mistaken–imaginary.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Jim McGinn
November 3, 2015 8:24 am

James McGinn:
You continue to waste space in threads by posting nonsense.
For example, you write this twaddle

Vapor is not a gas. It is a liquid. It consists of miniature droplets suspended in air. But not gaseous H2O. Our atmosphere is too cool for steam.

Bollocks!
Just so you know in future

water vapor
Water in its gaseous state, especially in the atmosphere and at a temperature below the boiling point. Water vapor in the atmosphere serves as the raw material for cloud and rain formation. It also helps regulate the Earth’s temperature by reflecting and scattering radiation from the Sun and by absorbing the Earth’s infrared radiation. See also vapor.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Richard

Jim G1
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
October 28, 2015 3:11 pm

Joe,
The pile is getting larger all the time and some of us old timers from engineering backgrounds are becoming less receptive to a great deal of research “findings”. One of my favorites is inventing things like dark matter when observed gravitational effects don’t fit GR and scientists say they can see the dark matter when what they are seeing is effects which contradict the theory. You can add inflation and dark energy to that pile. Often spoken of as facts when they are simply theoretical constructs to make the numbers work. They may even be correct but they are theories, not facts. A great deal of research is skating on some pretty thin ice these days. But then I never did stop eating fatty foods either and feel great about the fact that all of that medical research has now been debunked! And now I hear that hot dogs are going to kill me!

JimB
Reply to  Jim G1
October 28, 2015 5:35 pm

The big bang theory intrigues me. It assumes an input of energy of inconceivable magnitude from a magic source. Maybe the dark matter studies and the accelerating expansion of the universe will give rise to another, more rational, approach.

Jim G1
Reply to  Jim G1
October 28, 2015 6:34 pm

JimB
http://io9.com/new-survey-supports-theory-of-infinite-universe-1503361325
Studies of baryonic acoustic oscillations indicate that the universe may well be infinite in size and if so probably infinite in time which would make whatever happened 13.7 billion years ago a local event. My point was that climastrology Is contaminating research in many fields and or research is, itself, turning sour across many fields simultaneously and adding to the potential pile Joe does not want all research thrown upon. Consensus science and funding play major roles in this situation.

Curious George
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
October 28, 2015 3:21 pm

They no longer issue forecasts. They issue PROJECTIONS.

RD
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
October 28, 2015 3:47 pm

I appreciate your pushing back on these mendacious people Joe B.

Robert B
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
October 28, 2015 9:17 pm

@joe – who was sacked for the dud predictions about Patricia. We had our own experiences with Category 5 cyclones tearing down the odd tree and gutter but nobody was dragged into the principals office for those.

knr
October 28, 2015 2:37 pm

The presence of so much ‘smoke and mirrors in action, is as good an indication as you can get of the lack of a presence of good evidence to support their claims .
Still to be fair you need to remember this is climate ‘science’ were even outright lying and scientific fraud are consider not just acceptable but honoured.
The fact the area has standards so low that a snake could not crawl under-them, does not change the fact that these authors have met the standards required for the area they work in. And can therefore join a long list of others whose ‘research’ carried out in a similar manner, has come to symbolise climate ‘science’

October 28, 2015 2:38 pm

I am not an American, but if I were I would be asking Rep. Lamar Smith to take further steps to enforce the subpoena against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). An open and democratic society, as the great USA is, cannot allow publicly funded bodies such as the NOAA to indulge in maverick and illegal denial of due process. So, not only is there the concern for the “cooking” of data, there is also the fundamental attack on US democracy – neither can be allowed.

October 28, 2015 2:45 pm

Naturally they will try F.U.D, they are bureaucrats.
As good activists of the CAGW meme they expect to get the same pass that their brethren did.
Being very small fish on the scale of USA bureaucracy I think they are mistaken and about to find out.
Of course if the adjustments were justifiable and the emails back and forth not evidence of collusion, then I am sure they will rush to smother the senate committee with their great science.
NOAA’s Science says…..”Nothing to see here.. Move along”.
Sad how corrupt the whole government by fool and bandit has become.
I miss Gilbert & Sullivan.. this material is so rich.
Course the committees response is simple.. no savvy no funds.

Stephen Richards
October 28, 2015 2:50 pm

They would surely not have refused congres without being sure of guaranteed power to handle the resulting supeona.

Felflames
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 29, 2015 2:07 am

Overconfidence often comes just before reality slaps one into the mud.

Alx
October 28, 2015 2:53 pm

I am confused here. When I work for various entities all communication from me and to me are owned by that entity. There is nothing private when using company resources to communicate. They do that to protect themselves, the employees, contractors, and their customers. I was always aware in all of my communication, anyone within the company and any entity with oversight over the company could look at my communications at any time. You think I am going to tell an auditor, “No those emails on project X are private, you can’t see them.”. Come on…
The lowlifes, er I mean the nonprofessionals, er I mean the professionals at the NOAA seem to think their work communication is private, like their private porno accounts, er I mean private email accounts. That is about a stupid a stance as one could take using resources that do not belong to you. We are not talking doctor/patient or lawyer/client confidentiality, we are talking common sense which left the building awhile ago at these institutions.

JohnH
October 28, 2015 3:04 pm

“Why should we make the communications available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with them?”
At least they’re consistent.

Pat Michaels
October 28, 2015 3:05 pm

This has a long history.
Karl was the chief of the science team for the first (2001) National Assessment. That team considered nine GCMs, and chose two. One, the Canadian Climate Model, produced more warming than any other model. The other, the UKMO model, produced the greatest precipitation changes.
I tested them both on historical 20th century 10 year running means, and the residual error was larger than the standard error of the raw data, a seemingly impossible example of a model actually supplying negative knowledge.
I wrote up my results as a part of the review and commentary process on the draft, and I also sent a copy to Tom. He wrote back that they had run a similar test and found the same thing.
And the report was published anyway. So you see, they knowingly violate rules of normative science in service of their careers and their political masters.
You can read all about this in my book coming out on October 30: Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything”.

Reply to  Pat Michaels
October 28, 2015 3:40 pm

…a seemingly impossible example of a model actually supplying negative knowledge.

LOL!
Oh, wait, it actually WAS negative knowledge!

Ossqss
Reply to  Pat Michaels
October 28, 2015 7:20 pm

Pat, who makes the decisions for such?
No really, where do we find the decision tree on every adjustment to the records?
Should be public record, no matter. Where are our data miners?
Why would we not want to know, in more depth who dunnit, and the justification for it?

Reply to  Ossqss
October 29, 2015 3:30 am

The Karl 2015 paper grew out of earlier, tactical papers that allowed Karl’s long-term strategy (kill the pause in the official record) to be implemented. If there is a conspiracy in that regard, it is a long running one.
It seems unlikely that Smith’s subpoena will turn up uncontestable physics/math mistakes in any of the papers. This is all about individual judgment and illicit motivation.
Therefore, NOAA is perfectly willing to turn over the data and thereby perpetuate the argument over what “the data” tells us. What they absolutely refuse to do is turn over any emails that might reveal personal bias and data inclusion/rejection decisions or adjustments based on a carefully calibrated effort designed to remove the warming hiatus.
If such evidence exists it would explain why a non-regulatory agency is so intent on keeping relevant pre-publication discussions secret.

DD More
October 28, 2015 3:17 pm

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), the committee’s ranking Democrat, has sharply criticized Smith’s requests.
“By issuing this subpoena, you have instigated a constitutional conflict with an inquiry that seems more designed to harass climate scientists than to further any legitimate legislative purpose,” she wrote last week. “This is a serious misuse of congressional oversight powers.”

Rep. Johnson knows all about constitutional conflict, and it is not hard to find a bit of dirt behind the ears.
Between 2005 and 2009, Rep. Johnson awarded 59 scholarships to students.5 Of those, Rep. Johnson gave 24 scholarships, worth $32,146, to seven people with connections to her, including grandchildren, grandnephews, the children of a close aide, and the daughter of an airport administrator who directly oversaw some of her business interests. All but one of those students were ineligible for the scholarships, both because of a CBCF rule prohibiting nepotism and because they did not live or study in the district of a CBC member, as required by the CBCF.
House members are directed to adhere to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(a), issued by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics for the Executive Branch, which provides:
An employee shall not use or permit use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person . . . to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.
By using her position as a member of the CBC to award scholarships to family members and the daughter of a business associate, and by writing letters to the CBCF requesting it make out scholarship checks to her relatives themselves, rather than their universities, Rep. Johnson appears to have violated 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(a).

http://crew.3cdn.net/051965e6c162c5cf80_vim6b8bxz.pdf
But she is still on the liberal plantation so gets a committee chair.

AB
Reply to  DD More
October 29, 2015 2:03 am

The “elite“ are devoid of ethics, their arrogance is astounding.

October 28, 2015 3:22 pm

I suspect they will find that Karl and his ilk has been trying rid the “pause” like they tried to rid the MWP and the 1940s warmth. Smith needs to subpoena Peterson for his part in USHCN data homogenization that has been slowly removing the peak US temperatures in the 40s.
As Steve Goddard recently posted :
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
Indeed temperature “adjustments” have been politically motivated.

Dave in Canmore
October 28, 2015 3:32 pm

Amazed that the defenders of this nonsense call Congressional oversight “Harassment.”
Karl and Peterson have demonstrated they are not scientists. They are not even adults. They are behaving like spoiled children. Disgraceful.

October 28, 2015 3:43 pm

“Confidential” climate science communications in public agencies but paid for by the public’s dollars?
So now climate science is somehow “confidential”.
Welcome to the new “science” folks.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  msbehavin'
October 28, 2015 7:28 pm

Welcome to the most transparent administration EVAH!

JohnKnight
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 29, 2015 2:35 pm

He meant it, I’m quite sure . . Thing is, to be a truly effective criminal organization, you must let everybody know you are one.
Everybody knows the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
(Cohen)

u.k.(us)
October 28, 2015 3:46 pm

Gotta be careful who you play with.
The things my sister is gonna do to her previous employer.
Talk about a relentless force.
God help him.

R. Shearer
October 28, 2015 3:48 pm

Karl misrepresented his academic credentials years ago and had he been in the private sector he would have been fired for doing so.

RD
October 28, 2015 3:51 pm

It’s a good worthy fight, but virtually all institutions are pro-alarmist/believers. These people will likely emerge stronger than ever as climate martyrs like Jim Hansen and Peter Gleck.

richard verney
October 28, 2015 3:56 pm

This is interesting, but it really needs to get into MSM.
I do not know how that can be achieved, but I guess if enough people were to write to some of the newspapers may stir some interest. A bit of proper investigative journalism could produce a really newsworthy story, if only a reporter has the conjones to dig deep. But of course, the problem, is that most journalists and newspapers are liberals and signed up believers of cAGW.

Darrin
October 28, 2015 3:58 pm

To many here are taking their eyes off the ball. The “ball” is COP21, all they have to do is stonewall for 6 weeks in hope a deal is made. While I don’t think a deal will be made, putting a dagger in this study prior to an attempted agreement will make it all that much harder.

October 28, 2015 4:04 pm

I’m guessing they’ll reconsider.

Science or Fiction
October 28, 2015 4:05 pm

By issuing this subpoena, you have instigated a constitutional conflict with an inquiry that seems more designed to harass climate scientists than to further any legitimate legislative purpose
– Eddie Bernice Johnson
A basic tenet of a healthy democracy is open dialogue and transparency.
– Peter Fenn
I believe good governments have nothing to hide. We want to ensure we maintain confidence in our public institutions.
– Jay Weatherill
If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason not to be transparent.
– Mohamed ElBaradei
A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity.
– Dalai Lama
There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny – they should be setting the example of transparency.
– Edward Snowden
Openness, transparency – these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt.
– Michael Moore
At the dawn of his administration, President Obama opined: ‘A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.’ Magical rays of white-hot sunlight emanated from his media-manufactured halo.
And then bureaucratically engineered darkness settled over the land.
– Michelle Malkin

KLohrn
October 28, 2015 4:19 pm

My estimation is that NOAA and most other AGW science has been setup to blunder. The money’s wont see a return, and only U.N> governance will be left to institute.

Martin
October 28, 2015 4:20 pm

Equally important is where and how readily this illuminating paper was published.

Menicholas
October 28, 2015 4:30 pm

These climate liars make me sick!

October 28, 2015 4:34 pm

Most of the co-authors of Karl 2015 are/were government employees at NOAA. However, James McMahon was employed by an outside contractor (LMI) and their website touts his help in “refutating the global warming hiatus”.
http://www.lmi.org/en/News-Publications/News/News-Item?id=228
I’m not sure how a private contractor like LMI could resist a Congressional subpoena, particularly given that their income derives from government contracts. Now, exactly who writes the federal budget every year?

Bubba Cow
Reply to  opluso
October 28, 2015 4:48 pm

the R&D agenda is here –
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets
figures, of course, and time for change

Smart Rock
Reply to  opluso
October 29, 2015 4:12 am

“Refutating”?? I wouldn’t give a contract to someone who couldn’t speak or write his/her own language properly. Part of a good scientific education is (at least it was when I was educated) is learning to use language properly and effectively.

Reply to  Smart Rock
October 29, 2015 6:34 am

That was my typo. Apologies, etc.

FTOP_T
October 28, 2015 4:51 pm

The response from NOAA is interesting in light of their professed mission,
Mission Statement:
Science, Service, and Stewardship.
To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts,
To share that knowledge and information with others, and
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
Seems this is a gift wrapped opportunity for NOAA to “share that knowledge and information with others”. Particularly those that pay for it.
Strange they would not jump at this “opportunity”.

u.k.(us)
October 28, 2015 4:53 pm

Now that all that theoretical science has been solved, just where am I expected to get the funding I’ve been promising my best students ?

October 28, 2015 4:55 pm

Meteorolological notions of storm origins are absurdly amateurish.
The public has not yet caught on to meteorological incompetence
http://wp.me/p4JijN-1RV
http://disq.us/8pk3gq
http://disq.us/8pk3ai
http://disq.us/8pk2zh
http://disq.us/8pk2tl
http://disq.us/8pk2oq
http://disq.us/8pk2j7
http://disq.us/8pk2cw
http://disq.us/8pk279
http://disq.us/8pk250

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jim McGinn
October 28, 2015 7:35 pm

What does this have to do with this post?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 8:06 pm

Jeff Alberts,
Good point. He’s posted that same bunch of links repeatedly.
So I read that thread, and Mr. McGinn is not stingy with his labels of “FRAUD”, “simpleton” “you phoney”, and lots of similar insults and name-calling that he heaps on anyone who disagrees with him.
But I am willing to accept McGinn as a true genius. All he has to do is pass a simple test: did he predict that global warming would stop for many years? I mean, did he predict the “pause” before it paused?
McGinn can post a verifiable link if he did. If he does I will be suitably impressed, and when he comments I will sit up straight and pay close attention.
Otherwise, all he’s got is an opinion, like everyone else. That’s why I try to avoid opinions (conjectures) in favor of empirical, testable measurements, and verifiable observations.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 9:56 pm

dbstealy:
So I read that thread, and Mr. McGinn is not stingy with his labels of “FRAUD”, “simpleton” “you phoney”, and lots of similar insults and name-calling that he heaps on anyone who disagrees with him.
Jim McGinn:
I want you to get angry and go out looking for an argument that will dispute my assertions. Learn to start asking meteorologists the questions that they’ve been getting away with not answering for the longest time. These pretenders have never actually measured or tested their convection model of storm theory. But they don’t tell the public this. And they refuse to discuss it.
dbstealy:
But I am willing to accept McGinn as a true genius.
Jim McGinn:
Don’t do that either. Don’t accept me as an authority. Don’t accept the silent meteorologists as authorities. Just realize that when a whole discipline falls silent it’s because they are pretending to know what they actually do not know.
Have you ever seen a quantitative analysis of the convection model of storm theory? No. Why do you think that is? Did they just forget?
Have you ever noticed that the convection model completely fails to explain origins of jet streams? Why do you think it is meteorologist never mention this shortcoming? If you were to ask them about it do you think you’d get an answer? Try it. What have you got to lose?
The reason meteorologists won’t debate certain issues is the same reason climatologists won’t debate certain issues. They know that to do so will only cause them to lose status.
When people in any discipline fall collectively silent there is always a reason. Always.
If you ask a meteorologist to explain the notion that convection of warm and/or moist air powers storms they will sidestep the question, tell you their credentials, and accuse you of being ignorant. That is because in reality there is no drama in the the notion that convection of warm and/or moist air powers storms. Just like climatologists, meteorologists allow their audiences imaginations do the heavy lifting of their science. Climatology AND meteorology are BOTH consensus sciences. As with all consensus sciences, truth is determined not by empirical methods by whether or not the notion is easily conveyed to a gullible public.
Mostly meteorologists lack the intellectual inclination to properly evaluate many of the notions that have gained acceptance in their field. For example, another plainly silly notion that is accepted by meteorologists is the notion that “inversion” layers are caused by warmer, mid-level layers of dry (or dryer) air that exert a down force that “caps” the upward movement of moist air below. This is plainly absurd. It is common knowledge that gases have no such abilities. I’ve asked over 20 meteorologists to explain this notion and each time they sidestepped the issue.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 10:15 pm

Jeff Alberts:
What does this have to do with this post?
Jim McGinn:
I’m demonstrating that meteorologists use the incompetence of climatology to draw attention away from their own incompetence.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 28, 2015 10:25 pm

dbstealey:
lots of similar insults and name-calling that he heaps on anyone who disagrees with him.
But I am willing to accept McGinn as a true genius.
Jim McGinn:
Don’t do that. But don’t fall for meteorological propaganda either. They are equally as deceptive and insular as climatologist. They are just a likely to pretend to understand what they really don’t.
Climatology AND meteorology are BOTH consensus sciences. As with all consensus sciences, truth is determined not by empirical methods by whether or not the notion is easily conveyed to a gullible public.
Mostly meteorologists lack the intellectual inclination to properly evaluate many of the notions that have gained acceptance in their field. For example, a notion that is accepted by meteorologists is the notion that “inversion” layers are caused by warmer, mid-level layers of dry (or dryer) air that exert a down force that “caps” the upward movement of moist air below. This is plainly absurd. It is common knowledge that gases have no such abilities. And if anybody challenges them they just ignore them. Just like climatology.

Editor
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 29, 2015 6:39 am

dbstealy:
But I am willing to accept McGinn as a true genius.
Jim McGinn:
Don’t do that either. Don’t accept me as an authority.

I’m coming around to your way of thinking. 🙂

Bill Illis
October 28, 2015 5:13 pm

Why would they adjust the Argo SST data to match known-to-be-faulty ship based SST data.
Karl and Peterson. Bonnie and Clyde. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Argo and Ship SSTs.
… which one of these doesn’t fit with the others.

Editor
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 29, 2015 6:44 am

I don’t believe they did, they used surface buoys, not Argo.

joelobryan
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 29, 2015 8:08 am

Correct. They ignored Argo because it shows no significant global warming within measurement uncertainties. The few remaining honest climate scientists and oceanographic scientists who use Argo would be up in arms if NOAA adjusted the Argo data with ship intake derived corrections.

markl
October 28, 2015 5:23 pm

Keep pushing them and no matter the outcome it will cause people to question….”how on earth can a reasonable government paid scientist refuse to show data upon which their decision was made unless it is non existent or wrong?” If the data proves their point they are vindicated. Or not, and that’s the reason and everyone knows that are following. Unfortunately this administration has disregarded and bent so many rules and laws they will probably get away with it. They think. More people are following this than we realize even if the MSM is trying to downplay it.

October 28, 2015 6:00 pm

Good for NOAA. Scientists emails should not be political fodder; as long as all the underlying data is released that is all that should be in the public domain. I don’t exactly see Lamar Smith offering to release all his emails to the public for scrutiny.

Gregory
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 6:06 pm

Their emails are the property of the federal government and may be requested at any time.

RD
Reply to  Gregory
October 28, 2015 9:54 pm

yep, as are emails of any employee public or private.

Frank K.
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 6:20 pm

Zeke – I’m quite sure there is no harm to be done if they simply released e-mails pertinent to their research, because these are scientists who would never do anything unlawful or unethical. After all, most of the correspondence is probably just boring theory or data processing discussions. Right? You know, just like the IRS. Or Hillary Clinton. Right?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 6:25 pm

Zeke Hausfather October 28, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Good for NOAA. Scientists emails should not be political fodder;
No they should not, Nor is it “political fodder”. The people asked for the E-mails work for the Government those E-mails are public properly. Over sight is a responsibility of Congress. It is required of Congress; from time to time audit spending and activities to see if they are being done as required by law. It is required by the employees of the various agencies (NOAA) to comply. Not turn the requests into political theater as they have.
Do try reading the US Constitution and the Federalist papers, also formalize yourself with the Northwest ordinance Then read a few texts or constitutional law too, just to be a bit more up to speed.
michael

clipe
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 6:41 pm

“Scientists emails should not be political fodder”
HaHaHa!
https://www.google.ca/webhp?complete=0#complete=0&q=willie+soon+emails

Robert Ballard
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 6:46 pm

” I don’t exactly see Lamar Smith offering to release all his emails to the public for scrutiny.”
Not really the issue here is it Zeke? Your misdirection does nothing to change the facts. If Lamar Smith was served with a valid subpoena demanding he produce his e-mails, he would be bound by law to do so.
Science is not like the work of a Grand Jury or in the realm of discussions with your Doctor or Priest.
Sometimes progress is made by discovering what questions were not asked.

joelobryan
Reply to  Robert Ballard
October 29, 2015 7:54 am

Separation of Powers exempts Congressional communications from legal oversight. No one, not even the Supreme Court can order Congress to release a Congresspersons official communications. Congresspersons are also exempt from any legal libel or slander charges when they speak on the chamber floor, which is how Harry Reid is able to slander the Koch brothers and how he lied about Mitt Romney in 2012 without any worry of a lawsuit.

Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 6:56 pm

Zeke, wasn’t it Obama himself that promised “transparency” in his administration?
We have oversight committees for a reason, and this is as legitimate a reason as any. All work performed on taxpayer dollars and with taxpayer provided equipment is subject to public scrutiny, and that includes emails. There is no right to privacy here..Might want to check your facts.
None of Mr. Smith’s emails have been requested by anyone, have they? Sounds like a red herring.
Everything I do on my employer’s time and equipment is subject to public disclosure too, if they so desire.

Barbara
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 7:48 pm

The Congress is responsible for seeing that government agencies/employees do honest and proper work.
Also known as oversight. Takes a lot of nerve for employees to refuse an order such as this.

Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 8:00 pm

Amazing what one reveals about themselves when they rush to defend the indefensible.
I guess you are just doing your best.
Government policy is based on the findings of NOAA, proposed policy is using the “Karl Correction” as evidence.
All internal discussions are relevant.
And belong to their employer.
No wonder government corruption is rampant, if otherwise sensible persons can be willfully oblivious to such small details.

odcombe2007
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 28, 2015 8:24 pm

“Good for NOAA. Scientists emails should not be political fodder.” ~ Zeke Hausfather
Problem is, these aren’t just “Scientists”, they are Government Funded Scientists. funded by my tax payer dollars, and.subject, and required to comply with FOIA requests, By definition, they are accountable, because they receive public funding.

joelobryan
Reply to  odcombe2007
October 29, 2015 7:43 am

It’s an even more clear case than that. They are employees in the federal civil service system, the PhD scientists are GS-13s or higher. Both the NOAA director and Tom Karl at NCEI are Senior Executive Service (SES) civil servants. They signed acknowledgements of govt access to and oversight of their official communications when they receive user access to a federal IT system. Academic freedom as applied to academic institutions does not apply in any way WRT their email.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 29, 2015 3:06 am

Zeke:
do you contend that these NOAA employees’ work emails and work products aren’t subject to congressional subpoena or FOIA requests?
really?

DCA
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 29, 2015 6:58 am

Zeke,
By saying it’s “political” is admitting that your reason is nothing but political and claiming that only you have the that right. Pot meet kettle.

joelobryan
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 29, 2015 7:26 am

Zeke, I would agree with you if the Congressional subpoena was to a NGO, like a university. But in this case, it is vastly different. NOAA is a federal agency, its career employees are civil servants, and their official work communications are required to be conducted on federal IT systems, for precisely this oversight reason. When you take a federal gov job and are given user access on the IT system you receive training briefings and sign acknowledgements that your official communications are US govt property and subject to examination by any relevant oversight authority. The USC acknowledges Congressional oversight authority. NOAA has no legal basis to resist the Oversight Committees subpoena. They only did so because they know the US DOJ is corrupted and won’t do anything while Obama holds the leash.

FTOP_T
Reply to  joelobryan
October 29, 2015 6:17 pm

Look for a lot of bathroom e-mail servers being deployed by government funded research scientists. Nothing says “transparency” like a CAT5 cable running behind a personal commode.

Gregory
October 28, 2015 6:05 pm

Obama’s DOJ and FBI will protect them and they know it.