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:
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.”
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.
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.”
Is it possible to treat anything “politically based” – i.e., advanced purely to push a political agenda – “science” in any sense of the word?
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.
@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.
The integrity of a scientific process is and should remain confidential.
Where did we get in 2015? Feels more like 1015.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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”
Refused on standing orders from the climate boss in the WH no doubt.
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.
Of course a promise of immunity can be issued, then they must comply.
Of course “pressing” isn’t allowed anymore ….Bummer…
michael
“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?
“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.
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!
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.
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 not “absurd” 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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”.)
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?
And Petraeus only told his girl friend.
It’s time to destroy another email server in another agency. Such is the routine in the new improved open government.
Transparency in government… just as if they’re ghosts!
Re; open government: “The directives I am giving my administration today on how to interpret the FOI act, will do just that”. Obama.
Ironic, Peterson’s political playtime picture only shows the tip of an iceberg.
Wait, you haven’t heard of “scientific privelege”?
Neither have I.
Laugh every time reread that, bruce.
Reminds me of the luxury rides cruising in St. Louis with “CLERGY” signs in their windshields.
I no longer believe in the pause, it seems more like a reversal to me now.
Rep Smith should introduce a bill that defunds appropriate NOAA programs ASAP.
s/appropriate/all/
There, fixed that for you.
Right, who needs weather information and forecasts.
One does NOT conduct science in an “objective” manner, one does it in a SCIENTIFIC manner.
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.
PR’s tough, when the other side owns all the presses.
We (aka Antho-knee) own this one.
Not as far I as can see. The only ones falling for that nonsense are already dyed in the wool true believers.
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
I’m with you on this Mark
Mark – well said.
“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.
The US needs to defund the UN even if this requires our withdrawal from the organization. Let the progs finance it.
“… 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.)
Thanks for correcting this. I took this quote from a comment at a blog without checking.
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
JB:
“You cant run from a forecast.”
http://wp.me/p4JijN-78
Watch Joe run.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Oh, it may be your site. Why don’t say so in https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/about/ ?
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?
Oh, it may be your site. Why don’t say so in https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpress.com/about/ ?
It matters? Why?
If you don’t think that fact matters, you don’t understand human nature.
“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?
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.
James McGinn:
You continue to waste space in threads by posting nonsense.
For example, you write this twaddle
Bollocks!
Just so you know in future
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Richard
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!
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.
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.
They no longer issue forecasts. They issue PROJECTIONS.
I appreciate your pushing back on these mendacious people Joe B.
@Joe Kirklin – 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.
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’
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.
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.
They would surely not have refused congres without being sure of guaranteed power to handle the resulting supeona.
Overconfidence often comes just before reality slaps one into the mud.