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.
can’t somebody hack in ?
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Scientists with real science do not hide. Real science is always open to the light and to full examination.
CS Lewis is correct that science and magic are twins. In this instance, it seems certain that magic is masquerading as science and these magicians refuse to let their trick be known.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Thomas Karl (NOAA) and Thomas Peterson (NCDC). Remember those names.
Those guys are employed by you the taxpayer to provide you with global temperatures that are ‘homogenised’ to ultimately warm the present, and cool the past, to reflect an overall increase in recent global temps.
Their climate malfeasance is now under serious Congressional scrutiny and they are refusing to supply you with their methodology for altering temperatures to give a warming bias.
I wonder why that is?
Scientific fraud. And may Karl, Peterson and NASA’s Schmidt et al be exposed and punished for rendering temperature history useless, sullying scientific discovery and for destroying the reputation of climate science and perhaps all science fields in general.
You work for the taxpayer and you are not above the law.
It appears to this observer that NOAA is the US federal government’s weather service. Their job is to collect data and make weather forecasts. Or to supply data freely to private-sector or other government entities (state, local, foreign) that need it to make their own weather forecasts. WEATHER is their job. Not “climate” (whatever that’s supposed to mean today).
And I would wager that the great majority of the people working at NOAA are doing decent, responsible weather work. It appears that a part of what is otherwise a necessary and useful public service has been hijacked for what can only be described as political purposes. Tragic, really.
But not unexpected in this twenty-first century where science is for sale.
The National Weather Service is one portion (‘line office’) of NOAA. Others are NESDIS (National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service), OAR (Office of Atmospheric Research), NOS (National Ocean Service), NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).
NWS data, model guidance, and forecasts are freely available to all, not just corporations and government entities.
NCDC (part of NCEI now) is a portion of NESDIS.
With a corrupted Administration stonewalling on nearly everything in general and totally obsessed with climate in particular there will be no cooperation to force the arrogant government employees to comply with a reasonable normal request like this.
The irony is that in the Karl, et al, 2015 Science paper, the overt data method manipulation they use to erase the Pause is hidden in plain sight. They simply switched the sign of the SST ship-bouy correction, and even said what the effect of that sign switch was (pause erasure). That’s chutzpah!!
Bingo, and somewhere they had to discuss this deliberate molestation among themselves in electronic form, hence, the subpoena and the denial to turn it over.
History will record that when elected representatives requested information within their purview from skeptics and luke warmers like Willie Soon, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Jr, they all complied.
But when elected representatives requested information within their purview from global-warmers, they refused.
“We have nothing to hide. Trust us; we’re scientists.”
Justin Trudeau will make the pause go away. He can do anything. Ask anyone from Eastern Canada and ask his mom Margaret. Let let her for walks from time to time.
Time for a FOIA demand. Does anyone here have a direct line to Mark Levin? Maybe his Landmark Legal Foundation could file one.
/Mr Lynn
Or maybe Heartland?
I’m surprised no one has picked up on that they have seemed to have used the same statistical tricks that GISS uses for adjusting mainly global modeled estimated data now. E-mails between the two groups must have been intense so that can follow the trends together for the cause. There is little individually surface science data anymore, they are all sharing increasingly the same tampering tricks. Cooling the past, warming the present and cooling previous strong El Nino’s precisely between warming the periods surrounding them.
Hence, they are trying deliberately to reduce the ENSO signal in the surface data away from the present so it appears to show more warming recently. When the current El Nino has moved at least a few years back in the past this will also be reduced to continue the con artist magical statistical tricks. These are being adjusted too perfectly to be science or error related changes and certainly only represent deliberate human tampering.
Glad this was kept as a top post. We can immediately see the effects *ie number of postings
Simple answer: Zero all funding to their organizations. Why can’t congress do something that simple?
I unearthed my GHCN file saved from last January and compared it to the current October issue and plotted the differences:
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2eokwub.jpg
Interesting, virtually all of the negative downward adjustments were made prior to 1980. How interesting is that? Some up and some down for the first 100 years, and for the last 35 years all upwards. It just gets more and more interesting as time goes on.
But it doesn’t matter who points this out, the word isn’t going to get out through the mainstream media unless there is some sort of an explosion that they can’t ignore.
To me, the “waterloo” is the actual data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/12/9/1880-2015
although I agree that a lot of the arguments posted here are like water in the loo. 🙂
Hi Barry, nice to see that you haven’t dropped off the face of the earth, so did you notice the pattern in the graph I posted. Is that just “Loo Water”? Just happenstance? Couldn’t possibly have been by design?
The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, in France has issued a long in depth white paper on climate change:
“The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade
See JoNova
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/french-society-of-mathematicians-global-warming-crusade-is-aburd-and-pointless/
My comment on her site
E-Mail to SCM
Dr Norman Page
Houston
Gentlemen
The entire UNFCCC Global Warming Meme, based on CO2 as the main climate driver, has no foundation in empirical science and its current adoption as the basis for the worlds climate and energy policy should be exposed as the most colossally expensive failure of establishment science ever seen.
I would be happy to collaborate with any further efforts you may undertake with view to destroying the scientific reputation of this house of cards.
For my views see the series of posts on my blog at :
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here is an E-mail exchange with Professor Freeman Dyson which summarizes the current situation.
“Climate and CO2- Exchange with Freeman Dyson
E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page
Houston
Professor Dyson
Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.
I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.
For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
Best Regards
Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,
Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.
Email 4/9/15
Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
> Best Regards Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.”
The UNFCCC,the consensus CAGW academic science establishment and their friends in the MSM are now producing a torrent of scary propaganda in advance of the Paris conference.
It would be helpful if some organization or a group of empirical scientists could organize,and widely distribute in the media, a signed statement which calls into question the CAGW meme as a basis for climate and energy policy.”
Perhaps Anthony could take the lead?
Dr. Norman Page: I hope I am still as sharp (and courteous) as Freeman Dyson is at 71 let alone 91!!
I wonder if Philippe Verdier will get to keep his job now.
I would like to emphasize that if surrendering all emails, meeting notes (video recorded), data and analysis were made matter of course for all these products, this type of manipulation and others like it would not have occurred.
It does require such things as identifying the pause as a problem that needs to be gotten rid of. Discussion of what ways there are at their disposal to do this, what the risks are, mention the successes of other stonewalls, maybe even mention of Hillary’s hiding her communications… I see having to reveal all this sort of thing as a control on dubious activities like this blatant dishonesty. They do need to be controlled.
If NOAA has refused to comply with an order from congress can the congress instruct/require the police(FBI) to collect all relevant data from the offices of NOAA and their employees? If they cannot or will not then they will never see the data until Obama leaves office or at the earliest well after the Party in Paree.
Information request denied because of : “…confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process”
(That we have now patented, so butt out or you will be targeted as a subversive enemy of the state.)
Any further questions?
Thanks for this important article. Just one small, friendly suggestion. In about the fifth paragraph, the phrase “Skeptics of climate change” appears. This plays into one of the alarmists primary strategies, which is to change the subject to debate an irrelevant question that is easier to defend. Pretty much no one denies climate change. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, what is worthy of of immense skepticism is the claim of dangerous or catastrophic human-caused climate change. When we leave out the “dangerous” or “human-caused” part, we make their deception easier.
Keep up the good work.
Charles Lyon,
We tend to assume everyone knows what’s understood by readers here: ‘skeptics of dangerous man-made global warming’.
You’re right, the climate always changes, constantly. There is nothing any more dangerous about it now than there ever was. In fact, severe weather events have been gradually moderating over the past several decades—exactly the opposite of the ‘climate change’ false alarm.
Agree with the point made by Charles. Modest, mostly beneficial warming to this point so far.
If I had data that supported a disputed claim or study………I would release it to prove my point and make my detractors look bad.
If my data did not support the study, I would not release it(but then, I would also not spin data to get an intended result and am just an independent operational meteorologist that isn’t completely wrapped up in the political dynamic)
Just more evidence of politics replacing science.
Maybe that should be political ideology “hijacking” science or science being manipulated by politics…….you get the idea.
Does it strike anyone else as odd that a congressional committee would subpoena a scientist for his working notes? What scientific crime would warrant such action? How often does this happen?
torroslo,
Is a crime being prosecuted? No. But there are questions that Congress would like answered. Congress is the peoples’ representative. They have the right to ask anything they want. Why do you have a problem with asking?
The real question is: why are the answers being withheld? Don’t you wonder? This isn’t about national defense secrets. It’s about the weather.
Everyone knows what’s going on here. Even you, I think.
It just seems that this is an example of a scientist doing what scientists do, work toward improving our understanding of a complicated system. Whatever the results are in any given scientific paper, it is just another contribution toward that end. Some other paper might find corroborating or contradictory results. What would merit the additional questioning of this particular paper that requires subpoena power? It just seems so out of proportion.
So the perpetration of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi – not to mention plain and simple book-cooking – is supposed to be nothing more than “what scientists do”?
Interesting conflation of “scientists” and career criminals.
“What would merit the additional questioning of this particular paper that requires subpoena power? It just seems so out of proportion”
Answer: The potential to reveal a significant bias. The potential to learn how the current process is working.
If my end work product is questionable (in its validity) I would expect people to ask why … how did I come up with such a product? Was it at my discretion, or was it at others direction, how did the collaboration with other professionals, regulators, and owners influence the final product. If the owner doesn’t like the outcome I would expect to be required to explain all aspects of the process (NOAA is not the owner of the work product….)
A global, political, economic and social crime is underway and is being shored up by a shonky scientific manipulation. But you knew that didn’t you.
On second thought, it is possible these bureaucrats are so entrenched in committee speak, that they honestly cannot distinguish between;
Evidence based policy making and Policy based evidence manufacturing.
The latter has become so common amongst the mediocrity of the Greys that those within the bureaus may see this as normal.
Hence the House Committees requests would appear unreasonable.
Just as House democrats cannot conceive of actual grass roots voter organization.
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
JM:
Well, he’s a meteorologists. So that won’t last long.
pbweather:
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?
JM:
Your response makes my point. Meteorology’s beliefs about storms are not specific, quantitative, or empirical. If they were then you would have no need to respond in the completely political manner that you are doing here. I remember when I first started taking AGW proponents to task back in 2006. I would present challenges to their belief and the responses were just like yours is here. You don’t have an argument. You have vague beliefs that you haven’t thought about in years. It’s like you are telling me your feelings are hurt because I don’t believe what you believe.
I presented a number of issues in that link and you failed to present anything remotely resembling a dispute. Let me give you something specific that you will, undoubtedly, sidestep, thus making my point:
http://t.co/BUKr9dnK9O
Remember, no more whining. Present a specific dispute or kindly go away.
James McGinn
Remember, no more whining.
=========================
The first three paragraphs of your page represent nothing but whining about how corrupt, stupid and pig-headed all meteorologists are when compared to the genius that is you.
After three paragraphs of contemptuous rhetoric, you finally got around to providing readers with a small clue about your motive for writing. If a telemarketer doesn’t state their goals at the outset, I hang up abruptly.
I stopped reading your deeply insulting sales pitch at paragraph 3.
you may not like how james puts his point across, but i would like someone to provide a rebuttal to what he is saying. it also id not read quite as harsh as you portray, to me anyway.
Thank you Bit Chilly. It’s not easy developing a hypothesis and trying to convey it to people that are indifferent to anything that doesn’t advance their particular political ideology. Much appreciated:
It’s funny, but when I first set out to tell the world of my new theory I expected people to be thankful that I was reviving an intellectually dead subject. Convection theory was so ephemeral and vague that I knew nobody would or could defend it, as has been the case. However, I never expected the depth of emotions that people have for what is such a non-starter of a theory. I now realize that this is just normal for humans. When a scientific theory is devoid of details and facts people’s minds just naturally fill-in those details with their imagination, like children do with fairy tales. And they are more emotionally attached to these created details than they would be if the details were conveyed to them by somebody or if they had read them in a book.
Unlike any of my fellow students, when I took meteorology classes I was already well educated in physics, chemistry, math and geology. So the brain-washing aspects of meteorological indoctrination didn’t have the effect on me that it had on my classmates and that it, apparently, has had on all other meteorologists. Even then I was skeptical. I had gone out of my way to take the class because I was deeply curious about severe weather. I remember sitting there as the professor explained that convection was what powered all storms. “That couldn’t be right,” I said to myself, “how could such a benign process as convection underlie the power and majesty of thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes? There has got to be something more to it than just that.”
My interest in severe weather began when I was twelve when I was given a book on meteorology from my uncle. Therein was a section, with pictures, that discussed frogs and fish falling from the sky having been sucked up by a tornado and carried for miles. Over the years I had tried to imagine how it was possible for atmospheric gases to, seemingly, conspire to cause such. Even if you could, somehow, imagine strong winds that, somehow, initially lift frogs and fish from a pond it didn’t seem conceivable that it would be coordinated enough to juggle them for miles and plop them down in one area. In my mind there had to be something structural involved. So when my professor had begun and ended our discussion of storm theory with that one word, convection, I was more than a little bit dissatisfied.
I’m not dissatisfied any more. These are my books currently available on Amazon:
Vortex Phase: http://goo.gl/JFbXQr
What Goes Up: http://goo.gl/R6798E
Other Books on the horizon:
Why Wind Farms Cause Drought
Meteorology of the Future
James McGinn
james, i do not own a kindle, but my father does. i will read the books.thank you for the links.
For those who consider their remarks libertarian in connection with: ‘why would congress want to have private emails and scientific notes….” The argument has already been made that these represent part of the worktime output they have been paid for so they aren’t private.” The real reason is that such stuff, like the climategate emails, in which you all must have understood that underhanded stuff was being revealed is what is highly likely on record in the case of the pausebuster shennanigans. The pause was causing such heartburn among proponents of dangerous CO2-caused climate change and they had waited it out this far and already offered over 50 lame excuses.
Someone emailed somebody and told him we got to kill this pause. It has exceeded the limits that we offered as the point at which we would have to reconsider our theory. How do we do it? What are the risks we run in doing it? etc. There is no question there has been this kind of exchange. Knowing you had to regularly hand over your communications on such a product would have prevented the manipulation in the first place. This is a lesson to Congress and the agencies. It is the best way to cause such ‘scientists’ to discipline and control themselves in the work they do.
“Someone emailed somebody and told him we got to kill this pause.”
You nailed it. The Thoms (Karl and Peterson) wouldn’t risk escalation if they didn’t have something to hide.
Whatever they’re hiding, it’s worse than contempt charges.