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.
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.
“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.
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”.
LOL!
Oh, wait, it actually WAS negative knowledge!
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?
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.
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.
The “elite“ are devoid of ethics, their arrogance is astounding.
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.
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.
“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.
Welcome to the most transparent administration EVAH!
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)
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.
Karl misrepresented his academic credentials years ago and had he been in the private sector he would have been fired for doing so.
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.
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.
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.
I’m guessing they’ll reconsider.
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
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.
Equally important is where and how readily this illuminating paper was published.
These climate liars make me sick!
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?
the R&D agenda is here –
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets
figures, of course, and time for change
“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.
That was my typo. Apologies, etc.
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”.
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 ?
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
What does this have to do with this post?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m coming around to your way of thinking. 🙂
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.
I don’t believe they did, they used surface buoys, not Argo.
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.
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.
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.
Their emails are the property of the federal government and may be requested at any time.
yep, as are emails of any employee public or private.
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?
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
“Scientists emails should not be political fodder”
HaHaHa!
https://www.google.ca/webhp?complete=0#complete=0&q=willie+soon+emails
” 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Zeke:
do you contend that these NOAA employees’ work emails and work products aren’t subject to congressional subpoena or FOIA requests?
really?
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.
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.
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.
Obama’s DOJ and FBI will protect them and they know it.
Times and governments change.
Some people currently in power seem to have forgotten that they may soon be held accountable for past transgressions.
Expect mass civil service resignations and massive hard drive failures in January 2017 if a Republican is elected President. It will be Operation Clausewitz v2.0, if you will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Clausewitz