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.
Pielke, Sr. has a series of posts on the bias and advocacy of Karl and Peterson. Those two have played their game for so long, without consequences, that they must feel invincible.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=tom+karl
I just emailed my Congress person to support the House Science Committee’s request. Whatever your party affiliation, some of them do actually listen to their constituents.
So the raw data, adjusted data, technical notes, published papers and source code isn’t enough for Rep. Smith? Isn’t that odd… almost as if the chairman and his staff are neither interested in or competent to interpret the technical data they’re complaining about.
“Isn’t that odd…” [?]
No. Not at all. You must live in some kind of ivory tower to think that the power of oversight does not extend to the discovery of mendacious behaviors in the work place. Are you suggesting that the employees in question can violate the law?
I find it interesting how it is just “Rep. Smith” and “his” committee (like he owns it or something) that you comment about.
The committee has app. 39 members, of both parties, he just happens to be the chairperson. But maybe you are neither interested or competent to find that out for yourself.
Well said, Robert Ballard.
I think the point is: What is the scientific justification to use less accurate and less complete ship buoy data? It has no justification. It makes no scientific sense,
Are you interested and competent to explain that?
If so, feel free.
“Isn’t that odd… almost as if the chairman and his staff are neither interested in or competent to interpret the technical data they’re complaining about.”
Or maybe they understand it perfectly, and understand that it makes absolutely no scientific sense to have altered more accurate data to match less accurate data.
It only makes political sense, and they wish to know what influenced these people.
Where they told to fudge they data even more?
Did they start out with a predetermined conclusion?
Anyone who defends this illegal refusal is telegraphing their knowledge that what would be uncovered would be very bad for the climate liars, and that is why they are seeking to refuse to comply with a legal order to turn them over.
These are public records, not personal documents.
As a point of law. attempting to conceal evidence is taken to be evidence of culpability in and of itself.
That’s not the only question at hand here. What has happened here is that one set of less than perfect data was re-calibrated by using a different set of even less reliable data. The adjustments are largely mathematical in nature, having little to do with actual scientific discovery. So, no doubt there is an obligation to provide the data, source code, etc. But there’s also necessary oversight to understand the reasoning behind the adjustments: from which office did this directive come from; under what protocols were or were not followed to maintain and/or alter data; is this in alignment with the office’s mission statement and legislated purpose; what vetting process was used within the agency/office to support such research and adjustments; etc.
You are willfully misleading with your statement. You’re stating something as fact that virtually everybody would agree with, the scientific obligation to allow the results to be verified independently, but ignoring the motive and directive behind such adjustments. There’s many analogies that could be made to turn your argument upside down, to the point where you would say, “Absolutely, they MUST provide that information!”, that you would then have difficulty making the distinction between your two positions without sounding like a hypocrite.
Irregardless, what’s asked here is well within the authority of the congress, asking for information that the People own and is not national security nor any other exempted information. There’s no righteousness that shields and bars the People from information that they own.
I suspect you’re trolling but I would say what I’ve said above with unwavering and unconditional certainty every day, every hour, on every issue regarding the transparency of our government, elected officials, sworn officials, and civil servants.
EarthGeo
October 28, 2015 at 6:43 pm
” Isn’t that odd… almost as if…”
——————-
listening to: “Do You Believe In Magic”- The Lovin’ Spoonful
Sometimes the cover-up becomes the story
It is very odd and alarming to see the USA morphing into the Soviet Union…less than thirty years after that absurd entity collapsed. Obama is the USA’s Gorbachev.
It actually makes sense. The USSR was a clear and present danger. One that the Left couldn’t really hide. That’s gone now, and the modern examples like DPRK, Venezuela, and Cuba are easy to ignore since they’re so relatively insignificant.
This is silly. Everyone knows global warming is caused by a You Tube video.
On a more serious note, this won’t be helpful. MSM will portray it as a which hunt while ignoring the nonsense and fraud (yes, I went there) of the RICO20. There weren’t even any prosecutions in the IRS scandal, so there will be no follow through on this from this Dept. of Just Us. It will get tied into the narrative around the Benghazi hearings and written off as crankery from a bunch of extreme right wing deniers.
Gonna need a much better smoking gun. Sorry.
Oh and you can ALWAYS tell when the Warmists are in trouble by the number of ‘defensive’ comments here on WUWT…right over the target once again. Well done everyone!
i noticed that a while back charles . a frequent occurrence in recent months.
Write your congressmen (women) and Senators and demand that they support Rep. Smith — I already emailed one of my Senators, will be emailing the other and the Congressional Delegation.
I am not sure how this happened but in the process of trying to determine which of these is the correct spelling — “wackadoodle” or “whackadoodle” (I’m going with “wackadoodle”) I came across the Phaistos Disc. I had never heard of the Phaistos Disc before but on seeing a picture of it I sort of had a wackadoodle insight into it. It is bronze age from a Minoan palace on Crete. It was discovered in 1908 and is considered to be the oldest example of a written language — a language which nobody can decipher.
The Phaistos Disc — The Phaistos Disc is a lunar calendar. It is divided into 30 slots of letters circling and spiraling into the center on one side and 31 slots of letters circling and spiraling into the center on the other side. The 30 slots on one side represent the 29 and 1/2 days of a lunar month, the half day ending the month considered a full “day”. The 31 slots on the other side represent the 29 and 1/2 days of the next lunar month, the half day beginning the month considered a full “day” — and the last slot represents the extra lunar month that had to be added in every 3 years to keep the lunar calendar (nearly) aligned with the seasons. What the lettering (or signs) say in the slots I don’t have the faintest idea. Also note that the damn thing is round like a full moon. That’s called “art”.
If I wasn’t a regular reader of Watts Up With That i never would have stumbled across this.
Eugene WR Gallun
The Phaistos Disc — Made an error above. An extra lunar month would not be added in every 3 years — Instead every 6 years two lunar months would be added to the year. The Phaistos Disc is a lunar calendar showing two consecutive lunar months. Adding months in pairs every 6 years keeps it always useful — during regular months and during the extra two months added every six years..
Eugene WR Gallun
The Phaistos Disc — That the disc is a calendar,.of that I am sure. But the type of calendar? There exists another possibility. The disc could be exampling two months of a solar calendar — a solar calendar that contained 12 month — 6 months of 30 days alternating with six months of 31 days. The Minoan solar year would then be 366 days long. (We use 365 days for the length of a year in our current calendar adding in a leap day every four years because the actual solar year is a little over 365 1/4 days long.)
The Phaistos Disc might be as old as 3800 years. Before the Minoan civilization fell into ruin they had the world’s most advanced indoor plumbing and it seems they also might have been ahead of everybody else in the study of the heavens.
It needs to be pointed out that even if the disc relates to a solar calendar that does not means that a solar calendar was of common usage. The lunar calendar might have been commonly used. The disc does not seemed to have been fashioned by a skilled artisan. Maybe some lonely crackpot stargazer figured it out and could not get any traction with the elite. He might have made the disc himself. Hell, it took a Caesar to reform the Roman calendar.
So, a lunar calendar or a solar calendar? Well, i guess we have to wait until the inscriptions on the disc are translated though knowing that it is a calendar should be a big help.
By the way, I know about lunar calendars because I had to figure it out in order to translate the story of Noah’s Ark in the Old Testament. The description of a taller mountain surrounded by three lesser mountains fits Crete perfectly. Interestingly enough when you understand how a lunar calendar works you discover that Noah’s Ark was adrift for exactly 365 solar days. Seems it was important for the author to show off his calendar knowledge.
And In the Old Testament those guys who supposedly lived for hundreds of years? The length of their lives was being measured in how many new moons they had seen, not in solar years. And those moons told how long they lived after they “came of age”, ceasing to be children. Their lives were not measured from the day they were born but from the day they ceased to be children (and thus began to die). Sort of weird but many civilizations did not formally name children till they came of age.
Eugene WR Gallun
The Phaistos Disc — Hell, I need to take a stand. I have decided to say that it is a solar calendar. I’ll ride with that.
Some people have said that if was the destroyed Minoan civilization on Crete that sparked the legends about Atlantis. What with their indoor plumbing and their solar calendar I can understand that.
Eugene WR Gallun
When the history of this mass hysteria( orchestrated by bureaucrats) is written, the most glaring observation will be how such obvious corruption of government agencies was able to continue for so long.
CAGW is an attempt to stampede the masses toward a desired goal(moderately successful) created,orchestrated and protected by our paid agents.
All working in government agencies set up to prevent the excesses we witnessed in the last outbreaks of mass hysteria.
These watchdogs are Rabid.
Good enough for government ?
Warning – Global Warming is causing Republican Congressmen’s gonads to shrink. They are going to huff and puff but do nothing. They are owned by the same people who own the Democrats, so don’t expect anything different.
It is so past time for son-of- climategate.
OMG apparently the Arctic “could be” ice free by 2030
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/video+scientists+arctic+could+free+2030/11475694/story.html?__lsa=de5a-cf15
The Arctic could be ice free in (the early Fall) of 2030. Sure. Why not? Or freshly formed glaciers could be grinding down from the North threatening to destroy NYC and Boston.
Personally, I’d bet on somewhere in between.
Well, the Vancouver Aquarium does good work and they need funding. What better way to fundraise than build on the current frenzy on CAGW.
Will the Arctic be ice free by 2030 (15 years). Personally, I doubt it but I have been wrong before. But when I look at the WUWT Sea Ice page, I see that the last decade suggests that the Arctic Temperature may actually be declining:
http://i66.tinypic.com/2hhenie.png
As for the sea ice volume, it could continue to go up as it has for the last 5 years, it could resume its decline, stay the same or increase slightly. We simply don’t have enough historical records to know what really goes on up there and the GCM projectionists don’t have a lot of credibility in my world. So its a crap shoot but I’d be will to bet against the Vancouver Aquarium fund raising projection:
http://i67.tinypic.com/np579j.png
Of course, anyone can draw a line on a graph. Doesn’t mean it is right, after all, its just a projection /sarc
It is the end product of exchanges between scientists…that are key to understanding the conclusions reached.
Presumably the “conclusions reached” and the “end products” are the same. Who could argue that the conclusions reached are not the key to understanding the conclusions reached? Nothing like a little tautology to muddy the waters.
Please define the word Scientist?
After the “Contempt of Congress” is issued, Congress can then appeal to the Federal Courts, which will ensue a “Contempt of Court”. Contempt of Court can carry Federal Felony Jail Time and Monetary Charges against the “Contemplator” or as in this case “Contemplators”.
“Stonewalling” is a practice that the District Courts despise and will act upon with the most … vengeance.
They really did walk into that one.
Ha ha
Here is a fix.
Future employees and those rolling over employment contracts be required to sign a condition of employment that explicitly states when information like this can be sought.
No need.
It is already law in the USA.
This is a really cunning PR plan to wind everyone up into thinking they haven’t got all the data and methodology to back them up and just as the calls for their public lynching reaches fever pitch, wham bam here’s our indefatigable proof doubters and recalcitrants all.
A very cunning plan indeed and one that climatologists so starved of oxygen and resources have to resort to so often, in order to get their dire warning message across to all the lay doubters and obfuscators out there. It’s not optimal for consummate professionals to have to stoop to this, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, to save the planet from mankind.
Memories of Climategate.
Am I right in understanding all that the NOAA has refused to provide is people’s communication with one another? If so, what’s the big deal? I don’t know of anything that would actually let them refuse to turn that over in response to a subpoena, but I also don’t know why anyone would want to subpoena it. If you have the data and everything done with/to the data, why would you even want the communication?
And for the record, while this post says:
It conveniently leaves off the part where Anthony accused Peterson and his colleagues of having committed fraud, having prostituted themselves for some nefarious purposes, perhaps at the direction of higher ups.
Complaints of unprofessional behavior ring a lot more hollow when they’re put in context like that. It’d be like Mike Tyson complaining Evander Holyfield hit him with a low blow. Even if it were true, why should anyone care?
Anthony can say what ever he likes Brandon, every citizen has a constitutional right to petition the government. What Peterson did by forwarding Anthony e-mail to parties that Peterson believed would use it to go after Anthony was illegal. Under the Privacy Act it is illegal for government employees to pass on communications with the public to 3rd parties outside of the government, especially when the intent of passing on such information is for reprisal.
The whole point of the Privacy Act was to make it illegal for government officials to collude with private 3rd parties to intimidate the populace from exercising their first amendment rights. Such as law enforcement passing on complaints by whites about observed about abuse of blacks to the KKK which happened a lot.
It doesn’t matte what Anthony said to Peterson. Peterson is a government employee and as such bound by the Privacy Act. He is not allowed to pass on a complaint to some wackadoodle.
Brandon Shollenberger:
Do you believe it would be important to determine whether any pressure had been applied to researchers to come up with a pre-determined result?
Obviously, NOAA thinks that is an extremely important issue since they are turning it around and using the risk of Congressional pressure as a justification for refusing to comply with a subpoena.
Given that both funding and oversight are Congressional obligations, if “Congress” believes that there might have been inappropriate interference with legitimate research, how else can they get to the truth?
No, I don’t think it is important to determine whether or not people at the NOAA committed fraud by prostituting themselves at the direction of higher ups as there is the slightest shred of evidence to support such a contention. If people actually had evidence to support such an accusation, it’d be a different story. But they don’t. All they have is the sort of paranoid rants and accusations of fraud that should be limited to Steven Goddard’s blog, but instead are being widely promoted as the face of the skeptic cause.
Brandon Shollenberger commented: “..No, I don’t think it is important to determine whether or not people at the NOAA committed fraud by prostituting themselves at the direction of higher ups as there is the slightest shred of evidence to support such a contention.”
You are naive but entitled to your opinion. If proven data manipulation and outright refusal to acknowledge the pause tracked by satellite data isn’t enough you can peruse their web site for more more support of the AGW narrative. There is no way a top down organization like NOAA would allow release of any statement attributed to their organization without prior approval by those in control.
You are naive but entitled to your opinion.
That says it all, IMHO.
markl, there is no proven data manipulation, save in the sense data is adjusted in ways people openly acknowledge is done, providing reasons for the adjustments. You may not agree with those reasons, but calling it “manipulation” is just engaging in cheap rhetoric.
Which becomes pathetic when one realizes the satellite data you tout is every bit as adjusted as the data you condemn. You apparently feel free to reject data sets due to the adjustments applied to them while demanding others accept satellite data set despite the adjustments applied to it.
But sure, lets go with the fraud story, claiming these guys prostituted themselves at the direction of higher ups. It’s a lot easier than actually having to bother to understand the issues.
Brandon Shollenberger commented: “…there is no proven data manipulation, save in the sense data is adjusted in ways people openly acknowledge is done, providing reasons for the adjustments…..”
Why would anyone go back 80 years into historical records and change data? What could their motive possibly be? There is no justification for what they did regardless of the purported accuracy of their method. Think about it and answer this please.
“…the satellite data you tout is every bit as adjusted as the data you condemn….”
This is a false statement. The calibrations are in 1/10 of a degree and done before posting. As well they are calibrated against concurrent balloon data to verify accuracy. You just can’t admit that it’s the most precise and complete measurement of global temperature available today. The advent/launch of the satellite was even touted by the Warmist Cult that it would finally prove their theory. Instead they ignore it because it does just the opposite and they can’t control the facts. Look what they did with the OCO-2 data…..hid it from the public until they could “properly explain it” after the initial passes didn’t fit their agenda.
“…But sure, lets go with the fraud story, claiming these guys prostituted themselves at the direction of higher ups. It’s a lot easier than actually having to bother to understand the issues…”.
And what are those “issues”? Typical shaming statement and typically without cause. BTW, whether they were directed or not is not the point. The point is their superiors condoned it by allowing it to be published under their banner. Your apologies in the face of the facts are without common sense merit.
markl:
Nobody goes back into the historical records and changes anything. The reason past values change is due to how data is calibrated based on the most recent data. As calibration changes, values based on that calibration change.
You can dislike the approach, and there are reasons to not use it, but there is no excuse for misrepresenting it like you have. Please try to learn about the topic before speaking on it.
You clearly have no idea how satellite data is collected or processed. I bet you couldn’t find the raw satellite measurements if you had a month to look for it. In fact, I’d be willing to bet money on that because the raw satellite data is processed and adjusted for many different factors which I could list. I could even provide documentation discussing the reasons for the adjustments.
Just so you know, people like you make me hesitate a little in criticizing Stephan Lewandowsky.
You seem to be a member of a large group of people who repeat a ton of talking points that make yourselves sound like conspiracy nuts while having absolutely no understanding of any of the matters you discuss. And unfortunately, this group is the one perceived to represent the “skeptic” cause.
You don’t have to agree with the reasons people do what they do, but we should all be able to agree about what is done. The data processing which goes into creating the global temperature records is not that complicated. There’s no reason for interested parties to not understand what kinds of adjustments are made or what data sets are adjusted in what ways.
Brandon Shollenberger commented: “….Nobody goes back into the historical records and changes anything. The reason past values change is due to how data is calibrated based on the most recent data. As calibration changes, values based on that calibration change…”
You contradicted yourself in the first 15 words. What a load of obfuscation. You are trying to say that 70 degrees F in 1934 is 68 degrees F today because of calibration issues that were just conveniently found and retrofitted for accuracy? Bull. You can’t wordsmith away the intent of changing past records as was done. I don’t know why you continue being an apologist for obvious attempts to deceive.
“….You can dislike the approach, and there are reasons to not use it, but there is no excuse for misrepresenting it like you have. Please try to learn about the topic before speaking on it….”
I’m not misrepresenting anything, you admit the data has been changed and that’s what I’m saying. Those “reason not to use it” are valid and being ignored without cause. Questionable practices are being forced to secure a predetermined result.
“You clearly have no idea how satellite data is collected or processed. I bet you couldn’t find the raw satellite measurements if you had a month to look for it. In fact, I’d be willing to bet money on that because the raw satellite data is processed and adjusted for many different factors which I could list. I could even provide documentation discussing the reasons for the adjustments.”
Don’t I now….you must be clairvoyant. I stated satellite data was adjusted (“calibrated”) and cross checked for accuracy. If you are going to get your shorts in a twist the least you could do is read what people say instead of injecting your own bias.
“….Just so you know, people like you make me hesitate a little in criticizing Stephan Lewandowsky…..”
You need to get a life if this is upsetting you.
“…You seem to be a member of a large group of people who repeat a ton of talking points that make yourselves sound like conspiracy nuts while having absolutely no understanding of any of the matters you discuss. And unfortunately, this group is the one perceived to represent the “skeptic” cause…”
For shame for shame on me. So in the absence of any facts to convince me that changing and misrepresenting data is acceptable you claim conspiracy theory because I believe otherwise. So who’s the conspiracy theorist? Once again, what are the “issues” that you think are relevant and that I missed? Because the ice isn’t disappearing, nor glaciers completely melting, nor polar bears becoming extinct, nor more hurricanes, nor anything, anything the alarmist have claimed would happen….especially the global temperature rise…..anyone who questions their motives is a conspiracy theorist? That would make you a useful idiot (excuse me for stooping to your level but I had to for clarity).
“…You don’t have to agree with the reasons people do what they do, but we should all be able to agree about what is done…”
I neither agree with their reasons nor their methods which obviates the outcome. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist then so be it but it certainly doesn’t put a halo over your head. For all the claims of conspiracy theory I hear not one, including yours, has any merit other than an attempt to shame and redirect. The simplest and preferred way to put one to rest is to challenge it with facts. So with the case at hand we have two people being questioned….legally, with reason, and within their terms of employment….. who refuse to cooperate. You think it’s OK, do you not? If not, why are you apologizing for them? If you don’t think it’s OK and you carry on like you do then you are part of the problem.
“…The data processing which goes into creating the global temperature records is not that complicated. There’s no reason for interested parties to not understand what kinds of adjustments are made or what data sets are adjusted in what ways…”
At least we agree on something. And I don’t agree with some adjustments and interpretations is what I’m saying. I believe this broohaha is over why government employees should be held accountable for what they do. If it is nothing but a conspiracy theory why are you defending it so vehemently?
And please, if you can’t be accurate at least be civil.
markl:
That’s not what I said, at all. There is more than one type of calibration. If you understood anything about how the temperature record is created, you’d know what I was referring to is nothing like what you say. Anyone with a basic understanding of this subject would know I was referring to how stations are calibrated in the processing steps used to create the temperature record.
You can talk all you want about there being “obvious attempts to deceive,” but you’re not going to convince anybody of anything. All you’re doing to do is make yourself look like a lunatic. Rational people understand people on other sides of disputes don’t have to be liars to disagree with them.
Huh? What does being clairvoyant or reading what people say have to do with me saying your description is wrong? You gave a description of how the satellite data is supposedly processed which is so inaccurate I said you clearly have no idea how the data is collected or processed. That doesn’t require me being clairvoyant. All it requires is me having a basic understanding of the satellite data and reading what you said.
You know that comment about clairvoyancy? You might be projecting a bit. Nothing I’ve said has suggested I’m upset. Your choice of language though…
The facts are what you’ve said about the surface temperature record are false as is what you’ve said about the satellite temperature record. You clearly don’t understand basic details about either subject, and if you were to try to explain the basis for your claims in a clear and concise manner with evidence, this would become clear for all to see.
I have been perfectly civil. Pointing out you know less than nothing on topics you discuss is not uncivil. It may be unpleasant, but it is appropriate.
Brandon, you have not been following Karl closely enough. The paper relied on Huang 2015 to adjust SST, which is how the pause was busted. Huang explicitly relied on the method of Kennedy 2011. Slightly different dataset, but same end adjustment 0.1C. What Huang did NOT do is report the uncertainty in that adjustment. Kennedy did–0.1C +/- 1.7C. The emails will at a minimum show how Karl and Huang hid that in their papers, three levels down. Lamar Smith’s committee knows about this because I posted the sleuthing in a comment to Judith’s post on Karl 2015 at CE, then wrote it up and sent it to his oversight committee. Karl and Peterson are toast, and they know it. Hence the subpoena stonewall by NOAA comprising clear contempt of congress, 2USC192, enacted in 1938.
Rud Istvan, you may think people who feel differently than you simply haven’t been paying enough attention to the topic, but that isn’t an actual argument or evidenciary statement. It’s just a claim. I happen to believe what you say is wrong, and if you were forced to actually show the math underlying your claims, you’d be unable to.
But statements about what you and I believe mean little. If you want people to believe what you claim, you should do the work to show it is true. Until then, I’m content to just point out true skepts are skeptical of the things they hear, not just the things they dislike.
Brandon Shollenberger:
Do you believe that Kennedy (2011) did NOT find an uncertainty range of +/_ 1.7C?
opluso:
That was the uncertainty of individual adjustments. Claiming the uncertainty of an individual adjustment can be taken as the uncertainty of the net adjustments is absurd. Rud Istvan’s portrayal is highly misleading.
True skeptics are skeptical. They don’t just look for any talking point that sounds good.
Brandon Shollenberger:
I’ve often agreed with your prescriptions, even when the medication stings a little bit. But I believe in this case it is you who is failing to examine the full range of symptoms before making your diagnosis.
The issue Rud raises was extensively discussed in the immediate weeks after release of the Karl, et al., paper. Ross McKittrick, among others, questioned the statistical choices made in the Karl paper (and specifically the treatment of Kennedy’s uncertainty range and standard deviation vs standard error). I would note that even after highly favorable choices in how to handle the observational data, Karl, et al., ended up with statistical significance no better than 0.10.
Others have strongly supported the choices made by Karl, et al. The debate continued until, apparently, the House Committee with appropriate oversight took an interest. Although NOAA is not a regulatory agency (in regard to climate or CO2 regs) the information generated and compiled by NOAA is quite important for developing climate policies. So this is not purely an academic debate as far as the Committee is concerned.
The committee staff first conducted preliminary inquiries at NOAA (as they should) and requested documentation to support the statements made by NOAA personnel (as they can and should). At some point, NOAA made an official decision to draw a line through the documentation and refuse further cooperation with the Congressional committee. In response, the Committee issued a compulsory subpoena.
You agreed that NOAA has no absolute right to withhold these documents. As far as we know, the Committee has conducted an appropriate and focused investigation wholly within its oversight powers. Folks may not like the optics of a subpoena being used to compel delivery of work-related emails but sometimes enforcing the rules that everyone agrees upon can be unpleasant and even be politically motivated — yet Bill Clinton really did lie under oath.
Barring an unlikely court ruling or a lengthy delay ending in a Democratic takeover of the House, the Committee is going to receive the emails and then we can all renew the debate.
opluso, I’m at a loss as to what you believe the disagreement is. You say:
But this does nothing to support Rud Istvan’s portrayal of the uncertainty range being +/- 1.7C. The uncertainty range for individual locations may be as large as Istvan portrays, but the uncertainty in the overall results is much smaller.
You don’t seem to disagree with that point. As such, I can’t tell what disagreement there is. You say:
And more, but everything you say seems to fit what I said. The Congressional committee is entitled to ask for these e-mails, and the NOAA is obliged to provide them. I personally don’t think anything interesting will be found in those e-mails, but that has nothing to do with the fact Istvan portrayed the uncertainty in the results as being incredibly large by portraying the uncertainty in individual locations as though it was the uncertainty in the overall results.
The uncertainty in how much global temperatures have changes is not 1.7 degrees, nor is the uncertainty in any adjustments. Istvan was wrong to say it is.
Brandon Shollenberger:
I agree that we agree on several points.
I think we disagree in that I accept Rud’s concern as valid even though the Karl, et al., paper may have zero mathematical flaws. On this question of standard deviation of the sample vs standard error of the mean, I sympathize with Rud and Ross McKittrick’s concern over the “discarding” of data (i.e., knowledge of the wide error ranges in individual measurements) in favor of apparently precise calculations of global temperature anomalies. Obviously, calculating the standard error of the mean when you have over 20k co-located ship-buoy measurements will result in a conveniently small standard error (here, the standard deviation = 1.7 and the square root of 21,870 = ~148; therefore, the SEM = 0.01 +/-). But I’m not going to give myself a stroke worrying about climatological epistemology.
I’m agnostic on what the Committee subpoena will turn up. I’m also uncertain as to precisely what they are looking for. I wasn’t privy to the interviews, requests and negotiations that took place prior to the subpoena. For all I know, committee staffers already have turned up troubling issues with the NOAA program. Or maybe they just hate honest scientists. But we agree that the Committee has plenary powers to investigate.
If the Committee turns up dirty laundry of a personal nature I would hope that ends up redacted and none of us ever learn of its existence. If the Committee staff is engaged in an honest effort to clarify why particular decisions were made (such as why and when they loosened the confidence intervals to 90%) then hopefully light will be shed on the matter.
That’s a pretty weak hope on my part given the tradition of congressional investigations. So perhaps your pragmatic attitude (which I will summarize as “don’t do it”) is the correct one. We shall, eventually, see.
Huh. One of my comments disappeared, not even showing up with a note saying it is awaiting moderation. Did I trip some sort of weird filter?
[wordpress sometimes puts comments in spam. we have learned that the longer they are, they greater chance they have of getting put in spam. it is restored from the spam bucket now – mod]
The “Weird” Filter
———–
(I can’t help it)
I think extraordinary the sheer mediocrity of these playuhs. As if they thought their shoddy science wasn’t transparently inadequate, as if they thought their shabby dealings with Sou weren’t baldfacedly shameful.
====================
What would be the purpose of a money fine? Would this not be more money taken from taxpayers to pay back to Consolidated Revenue? Just a circular paper exercise?
According to the contempt of congress statue, the fines and jail time are personal to the individual person(s) held in contempt. No tax dollars from NOAA involved.
“Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process”
Oh the integrity of the scientific process is at stake all right…they’re the ones jeopardizing it. They’re not inventing a product for crying out loud. It’s not a formula for a drug. It’s data. If actions speak louder than words, this is pretty damning.
One reason for interest in these emails is to find out whether these people knowingly introduced ‘aggregation bias’ into their slope calculations through their method for pooling ship and buoy data. Even if unaware of the phenomenon in these terms, you would have thought they might have wondered at the way two relatively flat time series combined to give one with a slope. It seems quite possible there may have been some interesting/revealing discussion about this.
Must not have had school teachers that required them to show their work….