Is NOAA About to Crack? 'Pausebuster' study under intense scrutiny

Is NOAA about to crack?

Is NOAA about to crack?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who is leading a Congressional investigation into the infamous Karl et al 2015 “Pausebuster” study, NOAA whistleblowers have come forward, with information which cast doubt on the scientific integrity of NOAA’s global temperature reconstructions.

According to the Washington Post;

Smith told Pritzker that the whistleblowers’ allegations make it more crucial that he be provided with the scientists’ internal e-mails and communications. If NOAA does not produce the e-mails he is seeking by Friday, the chairman said, “I will be forced to consider use of compulsory process,” a threat to subpoena the commerce secretary herself.

Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.

“NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored,” he wrote.

Read more:

Climategate email 4872.txt talks of “pressure to tell a nice tidy story”, to tell a story which omits “messy” details about deep uncertainties with global proxy temperature reconstructions.

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.

What if this pressure grew, as the divergence between models and observations rose, until scientists finally couldn’t take it anymore?

If Chairman Lamar Smith can produce evidence to back his claims of inside information from whistleblowers, if he succeeds in forcing the release of NOAA emails, which are then discovered to contain evidence of dubious scientific procedures, the consequences will be far reaching.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David, UK

What are the chances that these emails are not “lost?”

Uh, were they on Hillary’s servers?

Caligula Jones

Well, I don’t think that the brats from Anonymous, or WikiLeaks, or Edward Snowden will be helping. You see, its a good thing then its their political opponents getting hit.


Good point and the previous and present head of the DOJ have “investigated” and found no wrong doing by the IRS despite facts to the contrary. I remember when the former head of the FBI was claiming he is investigating but when asked who was head of the investigation he could not provide a name.
Every form of Administrative branch corruption is dismissed when the DOJ is corrupt.
Of course the complicit media is also needed.

Tom O

Since servers are backed up frequently, and there actually is a government requirement that no email can be deleted – you have to have IT actually delete anything from a server, a user can’t – they should be available on redundant back ups. One reason why Hillary and the heads of IRS and EPA that got caught with “outside” email accounts is because you can’t delete any electronic record. There is no privacy in the US Federal government when it comes to electronic communications, and you acknowledge, when you sign into a US computer, that you are aware that there is nothing that you do is private or confidential. They even maintain keylogging files. Everything is there and they are waging a losing battle, probably only trying to stall until after the next COP in Paris. At that point, they will cave and give the communications, give those involved a wrist slap, whisper in their ears “good job, don’t worry,” and out loud say something like “you shouldn’t have done that, naughty, naughty, and don’t do it again.” Then, “By the way, I am moving you out of the position you are in to this one that just happens to pay a little more.”


The IRS got away with destroying hard drives and erasing scores of back up tapes AFTER they received a request to preserve all communication to and from Lois Lerner. So what good is a “government requirement” to preserve emails if there is no punishment for failing to comply?

Ian H

The information will be there. But there is absolutely no way it will be provided before the big Paris event. Stalling is an obvious and extremely easy tactic and sadly there is almost no way to stop it.


Assuming basic competency [the ‘Collision Regulations for ships have a requirement – do not make assumptions based on scanty information, especially scanty radar information – which may be relevant] there will be backed-up copies.
Tom – concur.
Something will – entirely coincidentally – turn up for these good soldiers.
Auto waxing lyrical about somewhat suspect predictions – out-turn, modelled result, guesstimate, indicated future, even grant-fodder – and possibly other supposed synonyms.
And why not recycle?
Yes – a cut & paste. Why not??


Clearly, the hard drives on their supercomputers either have or are about to crash…..


another case of ‘accidently’ putting a box of high powered magnets on the machine ?


Back in the 60’s I was at a crowded outdoor rally between two opposing sides to a local issue in which a certain news reporter was aligned to the side I opposed. He was recording the entire event with a portable, battery-operated tape recorder slung over his shoulder. I knew he was going to be there with his recorder, and had come prepared with a large, heavy, 1.5 tesla horseshoe magnet hidden in the pocket of my trench coat. (The magnet was taken from the magnetron in a discarded diathermy machine.)
With his reel-to-reel tape recorder rolling, I sidled up to him placing the magnet (still hidden in my coat pocket) next to the rolling reels. The magnet was so strong that it actually pulled on the ferrous parts of the tape recorder, so I feigned a stumble and pulled away from him. Ever since, I’ve always wondered if that brief encounter of the magnet had any effect on what had already been recorded.



Big Bob

Sounds like a lot of “What Ifs”


The NOAA big wigs aren’t violating the law to protect data that supports their positions.

the other MarkW

Roger that. People do what they do for a reason. And… people don’t do what they don’t do for a reason.
Find that reason, and you have powerful information.

Pete J

What about these tree proxies? If the most recent data do not confirm the ground network data and correlate better with satellite data either the ground based network is corrupted or tree rings are pretty much useless as historical proxies and temps were more likely to have been higher during the MWP than now.

Svend Ferdinandsen

Yes, but that is normal language when dealing with climate. It is all maybe, if, might, could be and so on.
Would’n it be proper to fight them with their own language?

Alan Robertson

“If Chairman Lamar Smith can produce evidence to back his claims of inside information from whistleblowers, if he succeeds in forcing the release of NOAA emails, which are then discovered to contain evidence of dubious scientific procedures, the consequences will be far reaching.”
That is not a given, at this point.

Rob Morrow

The consequences may/might/could be far reaching (lovely climatology terms), but IMO it’s very likely that any wrong-doings will be ignored or misunderstood by the majority (a la Climategate).

Climategate was essentially a band of amateurs up against the massed ranks of the British state who all had an interest in hiding the truth.
NOAAgate is a professional investigation by the majority party into clear and unequivocal tampering of the temperature record and malfeasance. It is being led by those who have the power, the experience and the interest in getting to the truth.

Alan Robertson

@ Scottish Sceptic
I see. You watched the Clinton/Benghazi hearings, then.
You must also be familiar with the Justice Department’s final solution to the IRS persecution of this POTUS’ political opponents. Then there’s the manner in which the MSM presented all of this to the American people…
(Do I really need a sarc tag?)

Rob Morrow

The House does not decide scientific “truths” and has no legitimate experience doing that. That’s what pal review is for. What is and what is not “unequivocal” science will not be decided by legislators. And if it is, science help us all.

Mike the Morlock

One of the things to remember, is the there are still a lot of grudges against Hillary Clinton going back to the Watergate era.
A lot of the Benghazi stuff is theater. The simple truth is Clinton and her staff were surprised. The right hand did not know what the left was doing.
Its nothing new, Go back to the Cuban missile crises, now there was world class bungling, recon flights into Soviet airspace that suppose to be cancelled but occurred anyway driving the Russians to the brink. The Cubans shooting down a U-2 despite Soviet warning not to escalate.
Or than the Reagan years. The Beirut bombings and the mishaps with the Special Forces in the Grenada invasion. The list is endless. These things happen. some government officials react better than others.
Where Hillary Clinton’s actions a crime? Legally no, Morally yes. She should never be trusted in position of responsibility again.
As I said some of the “Benghazi interest” is good old fashion grudges Considering her past. I ‘m quite pleased with the attention Hillary is receiving.
“There was Hillary Clinton, obviously.
She was working for the House Judiciary Committee Staff that was looking at impeachment and eventually voted articles of impeachment.”
I remember the times well, payback is a B***h
Hillary may get off scot free but it is costing her the Presidency.

Gloateus Maximus

Hillary’s recent high crimes include treason and bribery. Forget about Benghazi. Her private email system violates the same statute that convicted Petraeus, but to the Nth degree. The Clinton Foundation was set up for and conducted influence peddling, plain and simple, with US policy up for the highest bidder, like the Lincoln Bedroom, 1993-2001.
The white collar Bonnie and Clyde bandits took their Mr. Inside and Ms. Outside crime caper from Arkansas to DC, then switched roles to become Mr. Outside and Ms. Inside when Clinton Crime, Inc went global.

Mike the Morlock

Gloateus Maximus
Hillary’s recent high crimes include treason and bribery,
I tend to agree, and on her private email system, well that going to be her down fall With the FBI investigating her on what was and wasn’t on the Server Hillary Clinton is pretty much toast.
I was watching the dem. debate with my older boy (this will be his first election) I said to him, you never know if on one of these functions a pair of FBI agents could just show up and arrest her right in the middle of it.
In the end I think it will happen. and I don’t think President Obama will lift a finger to help her. I don’t believe he has a sense of loyalty to anyone.

Gloateus Maximus

IMO Obama has loyalty to himself. He shamelessly used Susan Rice after Benghazi, and she went along with it to get along.
However, IMO he would pardon Hillary if she were indicted for any of her many high crimes and misdemeanors over the past 40 years, not out of loyalty, since she was his opponent before his tool, but for his own reasons.


“That’s what pal review is for.”
Wow…that is the most revealing “Freudian slip” I have seen in years.

Rob Morrow

It was intentional tongue-in-cheek 😉


Yea Rob’s sense of humour is notorious 🙂
“That’s what repeated testing and comparisons to experimental results, or reality as it’s also known as, is for.” – there fixed it for you.


They were able to whitewash a “Delete Everything” command from the Climategate release.
I wouldn’t hold my breath even if it revealed a mustache-twirling diatribe from NOAA high command.

Chairman Lamar Smith is being contacted by ‘whistle blowers’ separate from the ‘request for information and background communications’.
Interesting! Why would anyone contact Chairman Smith outside of normal channels?
A) They’re interested in distracting Chairman Smith from his investigation?
a1) Very unlikely!
B) They’re afraid of losing their jobs and/or doing time and paying penalties.
1b) Now that is definitely a reason to worry.
2b) The first ones to sing are the ones who get immunity. Especially if the small fish can supply the information to capture the big fish.


Whistleblowers get paid by the US Government if they uncover fraud.
I believe it is up to TRIPLE the identified waste or fraud.

Samuel C. Cogar

When Sandy “the burglar” only got a “slap-on-the-wrist” for his dastardly devious theft and destruction of highly classified documents from the National Archives …… it is utterly stupid for anyone to think that the “DC culture of corruption” is going to throw “one-of-their-own” under a bus or a train. To wit:


Based on the responses to the original article, the consequences will be minimal.


Lots of hard drives are about to crash and wipe out all information, all by themselves !! sarc


Wipe? You mean, like with a cloth?

Alan Robertson

What difference, at this point, does it make?


Do hard drives ever have to dodge snipers in Sarajevo?


Why would it make any difference to Paris? Their land based data is showing nothing the other main data sets isn’t. Just a witch hunt by an poorly informed politician.


Simon says ” Their land based data is showing nothing the other main data sets isn’t.”
Which 18th. century satellite are you from? Or were you alluding to canvas bilge buckets?

Gloateus Maximus

So, IYO, NOAA did not cook the SST books, so there’s nothing to see here?

Gloateus Maximus

Besides which, the other land “data sets” are themselves shamelessly fictional.
The least unreliable are satellite and balloon data.

Robert B

The fudge to create the pause-busting plot is what is being discussed, Simon.


dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda bs=1M

How does that work simon?
Karl was justified using a poor data source to adjust a higher quality more detailed data source?
That Karl would not have had any NOAA internal discussions about the validity of using bad data to adjust good data?
Or that NOAA and Karl would not have had similar discussions with his palsy reviewers?
That a ranking committee member would not wonder why Karl and NOAA would ignore satellite measurements in favor of ship manual measurements?
Or why Karl and NOAA would glorify data tampering of lesser quality land temperature measurements over high quality satellite measurements?
Or why the NOAA, who regularly judge the lives and livelihoods for millions of people against exacting satellite measurements and usage daily, yet refuses to utilize the same kinds of high quality data for temperature measurement.
What’s next simon? Do you believe NOAA should dump satellite atmospheric moisture measurements in favor of ground based urban humidity measurements?

The Original Mike M

That would be a setback.


The whole thing could blow up in their face right before Paris and one year before a major U.S. election. Far reaching consequences indeed!

Robert of Ottawa

I’m sure they will stall until after Paris.


I’m sure they will stall until after Paris.

Likely enough. This investigation is being conducted in the main by lawyers, who cannot empty their bowels without procedural complexities.
Nevertheless, like an unevacuated colon full of feces, this matter of NOAA confabulation will maintain its painful presence through the COP21 proceedings and their aftermath.
Paris will not be a victory lap for the “climate catastrophe” fraudsters by any stretch of the imagination.


What is probably happening, again supposition only on my part, is that the “scientific” part of the NOAA scientist’s brains are realizing that science in the end must trump politics and/or that that the game is up or is going to be up anyway in the future. My guess is that this is going through all the meteorologists minds at NASA, BOM (Australia) at this time. My guess is that the Karl study will be utterly debunked and probably withdrawn eventually. WE should now start thinking about supporting the scientists in these organizations as they are probably under intense political/employment pressure. I sure hope the whistleblowers ARE NOT revealed and protected by law not do do so.

This comment gives a tiny bit of insight:
” * Mumbles McGuirck
 July 15, 2015 at 11:13 am

Well, the orders don’t come down to the rank and file. The WH works only with NOAA upper-management, who are only too happy to comply, partly because they believe in AGW and party because it advances their careers.

As part of the rank and file, I can tell you I’ve never been asked my thoughts on climate, and since it is not the main focus of my studies, if I ever receive a media request I am supposed to refer it to the NOAA ‘experts’ at NCDC (or whatever they’re called these days.) 

Supposedly, NOAA has a policy protecting scientist from retaliation if they express their scientific opinions on weather-related matters. Never the less, we who don’t buy into the AGW hypothesis are reluctant to test this. Just look at how NOAA treated Bill Proenza for being an iconoclast. So we scurry along the halls whispering to each other, “The Emperor has no clothes.” “

Patrick B

You are assuming there are some scientists there worthy of support. If there are any, they appear to be very few. Personally, I believe the whole NASA/NOAA edifice is so riddled with corruption, they need to be torn down, the researchers released to find work in the private world and a new organization rebuilt on a much reduced basis overseeing work contracted out to multiple sources, none of which employ old NASA/NOAA employees.

Is this belief based on direct interaction, or are you lumping all of NOAA into one category a la how the consensus treats us deniers?


Let’s not rebuild it. Just tear it down and salt the earth before leaving.
The few valuable functions of the NOAA can be taken over by private organizations.

Jim Sweet

You’re likely right. They had many years to purge the unbelievers.


How about NASA stick to space aeronautics and NOAA stick to weather forecasting. Neither of these agencies was ever intended to conduct climate research. This is like the USGS conducting walrus and polar bear research, it’s a bad joke. There just seems like so many obvious ways for the government to save money, but instead we have this:

Tom T

No ticketstopper there is one universal truth about “travelers” once they get into positions of power they make sure that they only hire other fellow travelers.

Patrick B

@ticketstopper – I lump it into one category because as far as I know, none of the various NOAA divisions have stood up in the name of science and called the alarmists on their fraud. If you can point to some division of NOAA that has done so – please provide links. I see no reason to keep someone who watched this trainwreck and failed to raise basic questions about the integrity of the data collection and analysis.

average joe

RWTurner – my sentiments exactly!!! The thing is, there isn’t much space or weather basic research left to do that is of sufficient value to be funded with public money. They need to stick to space and weather, AND be downsized dramatically to about 1/10th of their current budgets! People that were stupid enough to spend their lives learning cli sci deserve to be unemployed until they wise up and get training to do something productive that has value.

Are you sure you can manage without forecasts like this?
… The graphic above shows all of the NOAA forecast tracks, and the “cone of uncertainty” on October 1 and October 7. It is clear that they claim certainty much greater than is realistic. ..
Hat tip to Tony Heller in: Final Joaquin Scorecard


It’s just so enjoyable following this Congressional investigation – but it is a slow process. There is no chance that anything will “blow up” before Paris. But Paris will be fun to watch anyway


Just the fact that an investigation is being conducted should cast a shadow of doubt on the proceedings of the “Parisites”. We’ll see if this gets buried under propaganda by the warmunist-owned media outlets.

Crispin in Waterloo

If there is going to be a Climategate III it is about time to release it.

Roy Spencer

RWturner, it doesn’t matter, you see….the nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the global warming threat that matters.


I was thinking of using this same logical fallacy to start a campaign to build a 100 quadrillion watt laser on the moon. The possible threat from alien invasion or a major extraterrestrial impact is too great to ignore.


Even if the authors committed sloppy, rushed, and biased research, and even if evidence of this is brought to light, I would not be surprized if the issue is denied and obfuscated enough for it to be ignored by the MSM.

Not this time, because it is an election year.
And the whistleblowers must know that Karl relied on Huang’s SST modification, using the methods of Kennedy 2011. Neither Huang nor Karl reported the uncertainty around their 0.1C adjustment. But Kennedy did. 0.1C +/-1.7C! Both the Huang and Karl papers are statistical garbage. Rep. Smith’s committee knows this, cause I wrote them. All they had to do was read the three papers to find the evidence hiding in plain view. At a minimum, there would be email discussion about not reporting the statistical uncertainty in their revision. Clear evidence of scientific misconduct. Perhaps there is also more.


… very difficult for MSM to relate/say what you just said. Can you, ristvan, rephrase (dumb it down and/or sensationalize) in a manner that the typical journalist or MSM viewer could not only understand, but relate to on their level. If you can’t, then they obviously won’t be able to either.
Same for the most politicians. Even if they understand it, they (being politicians) know that they can’t do anything with it unless they can make others understand it (and want to understand it).
You have given them the information, but it may not be in a format that they can best utilize (or even effectively utilize at all).


you say “Karl relied on Huang’s SST modification, using the methods of Kennedy 2011. Neither Huang nor Karl reported the uncertainty around their 0.1C adjustment. But Kennedy did. 0.1C +/-1.7C!”
DonM has a point. Let’s practice with these statements. How to make them sound conversational and witty, while still making people understand.
always appreciate your comments ristvan

What DonM said:

Can you, ristvan, rephrase (dumb it down and/or sensationalize) in a manner that the typical journalist or MSM viewer could not only understand, but relate to on their level. If you can’t, then they obviously won’t be able to either. . .

Time to write the headlines: “Government Scientists Committed Fraud, Whistleblowers Say”; “Faked Data to Hide Lack of Global Warming”; “Obama Administration Climate Change Claims Proven False.” “Massive Conspiracy to Fool the Public: Fossil Fuels Are Not a Problem.”
The press releases will write themselves. The problem is to get the moonbats in the media to print them.
/Mr Lynn

“ristvan” wrote to the government committee, not the fad following shallow brained MSM.
All the MSM need to know is who faces the committee and who fails their ‘interview’ and communication review.
Perjury to the investigating committee is historically the greatest pitfall. Only the trouble with habitual liars is which version of their multiple ‘truths’ is actually truth and is actually represented in the communications.
Which is a major reason they are trying to not allow the communications to reach the committee.

Along with discarding inconvenient error ranges, Karl, et al., utilized a 0.1 p-value (significance level) instead of the more stringent (and generally applied in scientific research) 0.05. And in at least one case they barely managed to meet the 0.1 test.
It would be quite interesting to know whether this more lenient test of statistical significance for “killing” the pause was selected before or after the data was examined.
Lack of statistical significance is considered a big deal in science publications. Obviously, moving the goalposts in the middle of the game makes it a lot easier to win. Even if Karl, et al., have always applied the more lenient 0.1 standard in all of their research, that might suggest they recognize that their results simply cannot withstand more robust analysis.


The MSM is easily confused and misdirected, and there’s always a bigger, more exciting story for them to exploit.

average joe

Some may be looking at obstruction of a congressional investigation charges that carry long prison sentences. How appropriate it would be to send Karl et. al. to the slammer for 15 yrs!

It’s nice to think he’ll go there with friends and have company during that time.

” … the consequences will be far reaching.” Don’t count on it.

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department won’t charge Lois Lerner, a former Internal Revenue Service official, over Tea Party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, closing a nearly 2 1/2-year investigation with a determination that IRS officials bungled the matter but committed no crimes.
“Our investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia, leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints,” Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik wrote to Congress on Friday. “But poor management is not a crime.”


Maybe it’s a good thing Lerner wasn’t prosecuted now…She can’t be pardoned by the President before he leaves office, which means future Administration can prosecute her.

Eugene WR Gallun

Actually she can be pardoned. The president can pardon even if there is no conviction or even if there is no indictment. So you can receive a presidential pardon before you have been charged. Such was the case with Richard Nixon. (Impeachment is just about the only thing the president cannot pardon.)
To prevent her from being charged after he leaves office O’Bummer can pardon Lerner. Of course, after being pardoned Lerner can no longer plead the fifth and lying to a future congressional committee would be a “new” crime. She would have to come clean. Pardoning her might not be a good way to go.
Eugene WR Gallun


“But poor management is not a crime.”

What about poor management that is directed at one group and not others? Is that a crime? If I ‘accidently’ lost the job applications of all the black people who came in, is that a crime? Or if I refused the loan requests of just the Jewish people who came to my bank, can I claim it’s just ‘mis-management? Maybe my poor management style is to blame for why no Muslims or homosexuals ever seem to find a vacancy in the apartment complex I manage. Whoops! But at least it’s not a crime!
Progressivism. Where It’s only bad if the other side is doing it.


Unless those whistleblowers are and remain anonymous, I pity their future careers and time with NOAA. I suffered over 20 years of retaliation in that agency, and things have only gotten worse. The psychological dysfunction that runs rampant in the management of this agency, especially NOAA HQ, NWS HQ, and the NWS Eastern Region is legendary and palpable. Now, with the bunker mentality that sets in there with any kind of criticism, and the narcissistic responses that result, any criticism of their CAGW/CACC themes is sure to result in swift retaliation against any employees that are considered to be disloyal. I was actually told by a former Regional Director that I would have to “move to another region” if I wanted to continue to be disloyal. This RD eventually was elevated to a high position at NWS HQ before being bounced out of NOAA. And to think, I was told by another NWS RD only a year before the above comment that I could have any position I wanted in his region at any time. So, objectively, I guess I couldn’t have been too bad an employee, but after my putative disloyalty, I couldn’t get a position as a janitor in that agency. Best of luck to these poor whistleblowers…I have the names of some good attorneys if you need them!


Maybe you could post this on all relevant sites! After all you were an insider!! Also you should contact MSM me thinks

Like to hear more of these experiences, 4caster, please!

+1. This would seem to be worth a guest post.

Dollars to donuts the servers all get wiped, in true Hillary form.
However, you know there has to be backups.
Don’t take “no” for an answer!
The decree will come down “back channels” from the Oval Office to stymie this until after Paris.


4Caster Forgot to mention above that there may be a change of Government which might go the GOP way in 2016 which may be another factor in decisions being taken by scientists at NOAA at this time….


Thanks to civil service protection, local directors are way, way more powerful than a mere president.
They can’t be fired, they can’t be punished.

They can be promoted to corner closets and given a box of paper clips to count… at great expense to the taxpayer.

george e. smith

I don’t quite know how to break the news to you; but if you check, I think you will find that we had a change of Government, in fact I think twice in a row, that transferred the purse strings from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.
Or something along those lines.
So far as I know, the Republican Party has not yet discovered that they won those elections, so they have yet to start doing their Governmental chores.
Well yes, I do believe we still have the same janitor in charge of the latrines.

Tom T

Thats why I dont want Cruz to become president. He needs to be Senate Majority Leader. He is the only guy who gets how to use the purse strings to drain the swamp, especially in the bastardization of science.

Stephen Richards

It will not go the GOP way in 2016. Like the UK you have too many immigrants on low wages. The famous 47% will always defeat the rest if you add in vote tampering.


if the candidate can capture independents and Reagan Democrats, as well as bring out the majority of Republicans, the Rs can win. But who is capable of attracting of Indies and disaffected Dems?


Quite right. The only thing that will be surprising is that the upcoming election will prb’ly be close (which doesn’t matter) despite every single advantage being on the socialist side.
The snowball barreling downhill just gets bigger and faster.


Only when the faceless/nameless managers have their names and pictures plastered on public sites will they be held accountable by the general public.
They hide behind a bureaucratic facade known only to really no one. Probably will never change but at least we have WUWT and some other brave souls questioning what they put out.

This is what’s happening to the global warming scam:


Aw, when I saw the picture at first I hoped we were going to see lemmings running over the cliff carrying “accredited journalist” cards.

more soylent green!

I expect no change in the status quo. The believers don’t care and the majority of the public are already not buying the snake oil or drinking the green Kool Aid.


The NOAA logo has a crack in it that looks strangely familiar. If you rotate the logo perhaps 95 degrees clockwise, I think that is a Sea Surface Temperature plot.


This should be yet another nail in the coffin of CAGW, but it’s not going to do a damned bit of good if the only place anyone hears about this is here at WUWT

Then please tweet about it to #cop21.


Surprisingly the WaPo is all over this. How the story is framed depends on the author. I think I’ve seen a few jabs at Chris Mooney’s reporting over global warming, indicating not everyone at the WaPo has been indoctrinated.

This is interesting from Lamar’s investigation yesterday:


Too bad it properly sums the science and debate, which means none of it stuck with any of the Warmists.

At least things like this even get a parliamentary hearing in the U.S. – the parliaments in most other countries won’t have any of it.


Actually on hindsight 4caster posting above here is extremely relevant maybe AW could send this around relevant news outlets (or anybody with contacts)


Eliza, unfortunately, my experience is that retaliation is perpetrated in this agency (and IMHO probably all U.S. Government agencies) independent of the party in charge. Once disloyalty is perceived, the monolithic agency does neither forgive nor forget. Black marks next to names are not erased, regardless of what the agency actually says. Supervisors, especially the narcissistic ones, simply do not forget. Even if the GOP wins the Presidency in 2016, and NOAA shifts away from CAGW/CC idea, perceived disloyalty will not be forgiven. I also do not believe the GOP will win anyway.

average joe

Trump will win the wh. NOAA will get dumped upside down and 90% downsized. New honest climate skeptic admins will be hired. Their mission will be tightly focused on weather only. Cli Sci is going down the drain. And good riddance.




Anyway I think you could/should/must contact Rep Lamar Smith. It really does not matter if GOP wins or loses, the fact is that the climate/weather will not change so in the long run you will be vindicated


Correction climate always changes/naturally LOL


I don’t agree with comments above. I think most climate scientists/meteorologist and certainly atmospheric physicists (my father was one WMO and did not believe from day 1), at NOAA.NASA, BOM ect actually do not believe in AGW (Except for urban island effects ect), but their bosses do, because of politics my last say on the matter.

Eliza this global warming scam can only have occurred firstly because some people believed, and secondly because a lot of people who didn’t believe were either too frightened or didn’t care enough about the truth to speak out.


Does one of the “A”s in NOAA stand for Alchemy?


Have the “whistleblowers” been identified? I don’t see that in the Post article.

No, they have not, but they will be pretty senior.


Scottish Sceptic
How do you know the whistleblowers will be pretty? Why are you using spanish for ‘sir’. Was that sarcasm?
; )

M Courtney

Thankfully Greenpeace can’t yet say We know where you live.
But you are right to be concerned about people trying to expose and endanger these brave whistleblowers.


In deference to Dr Shukla the IGES/COLA forecasting maps are incredibly accurate to about 10 days and very well laid out. Its hard to believe this man/organization has bought into the AGW scam. But there we go, that’s life. This is an example of probably an excellent scientist who has no choice but to follow the AGW mantra (my view only please note).


Dr Shukla was scamming a lot of $ money from the government and had his whole family on the dole / payroll, which is a big no no. However good or bad a scientist he is/was, he got a lot of money off of the AGW bandwagon. No innocence at all there. IMHO


Does the word “rushed” also mean bypass? That is a key question.


Sure could use another climategate-like release of data and emails, this time from NOAA.
Hint hint…… nudge nudge….


The administration has discovered that there are no consequences to simply destroying information sought by Congress. In the Clinton email case, there were Federal Judges involved, so they had to preserve the info or face jail. But when its just Congress seeking the info, the administration has a pattern of destroying the information and then concocting a “dog ate my homework” excuse.

It’s less convincing if the Republicans already have the emails!


Hmmm! And maybe the WaPo was sent copies of them too?

Whistleblowers in NOAA? The EPA I could see. Even NASA I could see. The NCDC could use some. Clearly I don’t have the experience that 4caster has.
I’m sure they all are quite familiar with Climategate and other data releases. While there may be soon be some widespread disk failures, I suspect much of the interesting material has been copied to “more durable” media.


Sort of crushing and burning, data can still be recovered from “failed” drives.
It just takes patience and the right equipment.


From my experience, even if its the worst cover up. … nothing. Or NOAA will twist it to make it out to be disgruntled employees who, by the way, are just don’t want to believe the science.


My view is that all the people who believed in this AGW thing including me and AW should be forgiven and NOT PROSECUTED

Government agencies are all connected to this administration, and just ignore any subpoenas – especially if they originate from a Republican on any committee.

Claude Harvey

When the Climategate revelations did not drive a stake into the heart of AGW, why would anyone think this episode will do the trick? We’re long past the point where scientific truth has any relevance in this propaganda blizzard.


It drove a stake thru the heart of the Copenhagen talks. It can do the same to the Paris talks.


IMO, unfortunately, an agency selects and promotes individuals who fit their culture (especially the promotion part), so it all starts at the top. The appointed heads are not really who I am referring to, as they do not usually have enough time to effect meaningful change, good OR bad. It is the career individuals who reach senior level positions who can do the most good or the most damage. But if the culture is rotten, as it has been in the NWS Eastern Region for many many decades (and my direct experience is that it’s not quite as bad in most of the other regions), as well as NWS and NOAA Human Resources, and also NOAA HQ, then well-meaning employees who are of a different mindset or who do not share a particular agenda are considered to be disposable. This narcissistic culture results in poorer and even psychologically challenged people moving up to take the dysfunctional leaders’ spots, and the cycle renews itself. BTW, someone should ask the question, “Why in this modern age do we still have all these different NWS Regions?” Can you say “fiefdom?” How much public tax money could be saved if we eliminated this redundant overhead? But, instead of trying to save taxpayer money, NOAA is engaged in the scam of the millennium with this CAGW/CC. Of course, how much more funding is distributed to NOAA because of it? The leaders MUST seek funding. I’m all for research, but when I saw the junk science coming out of the NOAA Labs in the early and mid 90s and onward (including GFDL), with many of the scientists being on the younger side, it was apparent that the game was being fixed. I truly believe it will take large-scale cooling for several decades before this CAGW/CC subject is debunked, and even then, how will all the embedded taxes/programs be stopped? Unfortunately, my own forecast (guess) is that this (natural) peak of the Modern Warm Period will continue to plateau (maybe move up or down slightly) for several more decades until we move to the rear part of the 200-year temperature cycle in the latter portion of the 21st century, when some slight cooling could occur. Real cooling may not get here until we reach the 23rd or 24th century, i.e. 600 or 700 years or so after the bottom of the last trough in the 1600s, with the next trough in the 2400s. How’s THAT for a “forecast?”

Well, if temperatures flat-line, this will still mean a growing discrepancy between observed and predicted temperatures, and the scare will be ever harder to sustain.


We are always open to new predictions and forecasts.
Please give us some supporting information/data.


As bad as any other long time forecast

Mike Smith

Here’s hoping these whistle-blowers have, or can obtain, a real smoking gun and release it just in time for Paris! Now, that will be a happy day!


over at arstechnica they’re framing this to be about ‘the Rights War on Science’

Michael Selden

The real issue is when will the cabal exposed by Climategate, that filters papers for those who obey be exposed again?
Exposing this study as a deliberate effort to mislead (in other words lie) is a good start, but it isn’t stopping anything—after all, the pause didn’t stop anything, although it obviously revealed that the models—so dependent on CO2—were invalid. The progressive march toward turning CO2 emission (an abundant commodity) into a valuable tradable commodity (politically controlled) goes on.
While I have no evidence of this, my suspicion is that Obama intends to do with a Climate Change treaty what he did with the Iranian Nuclear agreement: Bypass Congress and cement it in place as a UN security council agreement—that’s one reason why I think it’s being touted as a security concern so strongly. Remember, Obama is selling human-indiced climate change as THE most important security issue—exactly why the security council was created. This will do one of two things, either the US will refuse to enforce it internally and weaken the US while leaving it on the books for later abuse, or it may well weaken the UN further (a thing I wouldn’t cry about, although I do think the UN serves a useful purpose at times).
It really doesn’t matter what is truth and what is a con job, as long as the end result is achieved by those who purport to be doing good.
Sorry for the beak outlook, but I’m just being realistic. We can discuss data as much as we want, but without a broad Congressional action (which won’t happen), this nightmare will go on.


The only useful purpose of the UN is for it to be used as a bad example.

Michael Selden

The primary useful purpose, for me, is that it provides a non-violent forum to air grievances. NOT as a policy body.


excellent point
obama bypasses the laws of this nation and tries to legitimize un authority


So where is the boot camp for this administration in training nefarious agency saboteurs and cover up artists? I rather doubt they self assemble this way from a random assortment of bad personnel picks.

Michael Selden

Just as the free market is organized around self interest, so are these cabals. There need not be an overarching executive body, just put the correct incentives in place, and make sure the populace remains in the dark.


No, it’s a selection process. Anyone with enough skill to go to private industry does so for the higher pay. Then, anyone who dislikes the culture of the agency leaves as soon as they can find a better position. Anyone who stays and then speaks up is outcast (see 4caster’s personal example). They are left then with only the corruptable and incompetent.

Gloateus Maximus

IMO nothing will come of this investigation unless and until there is a GOP president. NOAA’s miscreants will stonewall as long as they can.

Mike the Morlock

Gloateus Maximus No A Republican in the White House is not enough. You must have enough people in congress-both houses to pass legislation. That is the problem that we have now. You have a majority but not the “Super Majority” that is needed to by pass many of the Procedural steps wherein legislature can be blocked.
Also having the votes to overturn a veto is always nice.
And to all the system does work, we just have to remember where the levers are and how to use them.


When a Government lies to its people? They have built this and rushed it …in an agenda driven style for the Paris event!

Mark Johnson

Sounds like a job for Lois Lerner and John Koskinen.

Look for a shakeup at NOAA. The emails will be released, the power structure will change in accordance. The whole of the surface record needs to be evaluated front the “ground up”. This is me cheering on the GOP.


The IRS scandal led to nothing. The VA scandal led to nothing. The Hillary e-mail and Benghazi scandals appear to be leading nowhere. Why would anyone be optimistic that this will go anywhere?
We’re dealing with criminals that just don’t give a damn and have absolutely no controlling authority it seems to do anything about any of it.

Michael Selden

You are exactly right. All the means to change things requires an active and aware electorate, and a Congress that stops delegating its lawmaking power. In effect the separation of powers is becoming a kind of joke.


One other thing is needed and that is a MSM that is not complicit with the President of their choice. Without that, the electorate will continue to be misinformed and not informed of the illegal actions and distortions by the Administration. Remember when the Republicans are in the White House the media has people like Dan Rather who will invent stories to undermine the President.


Let the bidding begin on Presidential pardons. Hillary will act as score keeper as usual.


(y) 🙂


It appears to me that Karl et al did not know that there is a temperature rise across the centrifugal pump that is used to pump the seawater over to the cross heat exchangers with the treated engine cooling water for the jacket pumps. I calculate a 0.10C rise across the pump and 0.02C temperature rise in the piping in the hot engine room going to the heat exchangers. Ships measure the temperature across the heat exchangers for operational purposes, not for use by researchers.
This would be a technical smoking gun error.

Clyde Spencer

Sea Surface Temperatures are an inherently smoothed, ‘lagging indicator’ that are driven by atmospheric temperatures. As such, they are of interest. However, they should not be conflated/averaged with the air temperatures, which are more responsive to the forces controlling land air temperatures. Karl et al. should know that it is indefensible to adjust data of higher quality to align with data of known lower accuracy (such as the problems cited by JFD). This is prima facie evidence that NOAA has attempted to put a political spin on science. He will have to live with the shame of his toady behavior for the rest of his career!

Clyde Spencer says, “Sea Surface Temperatures are an inherently smoothed, ‘lagging indicator’ that are driven by atmospheric temperatures…”
You’ve got it backwards. Earth’s surfaces warm and cool, and, in response, the atmosphere warms and cools.

Clyde Spencer

There are two aspects to that: While surface materials are heated by the full spectrum of sunlight, and the troposphere is subsequently heated by conduction and thermal convection, there is also some heating of the atmosphere by back-radiation of thermal IR wavelengths corresponding to absorption features in the various gases. The amount of the latter contribution is the essence of the debate about the contribution of CO2 and other so-called “GHGs.” Since sub-Arctic ocean waters are typically cooler than the air, particularly adjacent to land masses, the heat in the air is transferred to the cooler body. The important point of my post is that since water has a much greater thermal inertia than surficial materials, it isn’t going to respond to changes in air temperature as quickly as land, in the absence of sunlight (during a long solar eclipse I observed desert air temperatures dropping about 1 deg F/min). During daylight, evaporation and the thermal inertia tend to suppress heating of the oceans from the sunlight; at night, if the air is warmer, it gives up heat to the water, slowing its cooling. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the behavior of rocks and soil is different than water and the air near the ground responds more quickly to changes in the heating and cooling factors than does ocean water. If we really want to understand what the changes in Earth’s temperatures are, I believe the air temperatures over land are more revealing.