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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David, UK
November 19, 2015 8:21 am

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

Reply to  David, UK
November 19, 2015 8:41 am

Uh, were they on Hillary’s servers?

Caligula Jones
Reply to  David, UK
November 19, 2015 11:49 am

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.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 19, 2015 3:30 pm

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
Reply to  David, UK
November 19, 2015 12:29 pm

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.”

Reply to  Tom O
November 19, 2015 2:55 pm

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
Reply to  Tom O
November 19, 2015 7:02 pm

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.

Reply to  David, UK
November 19, 2015 2:29 pm

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??

Reply to  David, UK
November 19, 2015 3:37 pm

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

Reply to  Scott
November 20, 2015 1:48 am

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

Reply to  Scott
November 20, 2015 9:50 pm

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.

November 19, 2015 8:21 am


Big Bob
November 19, 2015 8:21 am

Sounds like a lot of “What Ifs”

Reply to  Big Bob
November 19, 2015 9:20 am

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

the other MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2015 9:52 am

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
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2015 10:31 am

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
Reply to  Big Bob
November 19, 2015 11:13 am

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
November 19, 2015 8:23 am

“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
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 19, 2015 8:46 am

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).

Reply to  Rob Morrow
November 19, 2015 8:55 am

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
Reply to  Rob Morrow
November 19, 2015 9:45 am

@ 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
Reply to  Rob Morrow
November 19, 2015 9:47 am

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
Reply to  Rob Morrow
November 19, 2015 7:11 pm

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
Reply to  Rob Morrow
November 19, 2015 7:28 pm

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
Reply to  Rob Morrow
November 19, 2015 8:13 pm

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
Reply to  Rob Morrow
November 19, 2015 9:12 pm

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.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 19, 2015 10:34 am

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

Rob Morrow
Reply to  getitright
November 19, 2015 10:41 am

It was intentional tongue-in-cheek 😉

Reply to  getitright
November 19, 2015 12:39 pm

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.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 19, 2015 11:37 am

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.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 19, 2015 2:23 pm

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.

Reply to  ATheoK
November 20, 2015 9:19 pm

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
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 20, 2015 3:56 am

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:

Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 20, 2015 9:28 am

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

November 19, 2015 8:24 am

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

Reply to  Marcus
November 19, 2015 8:33 am

Wipe? You mean, like with a cloth?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 8:41 am

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 9:21 am

Do hard drives ever have to dodge snipers in Sarajevo?

Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 9:24 am

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.

Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 9:35 am

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
Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 11:41 am

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

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 11:42 am

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

Robert B
Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 12:05 pm

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

Reply to  S2
November 19, 2015 12:41 pm

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

Reply to  S2
November 20, 2015 3:26 am

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
Reply to  Marcus
November 19, 2015 11:22 am

That would be a setback.

November 19, 2015 8:25 am

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
Reply to  RWturner
November 19, 2015 10:45 am

I’m sure they will stall until after Paris.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 19, 2015 12:27 pm

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.

November 19, 2015 8:33 am

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.

Reply to  Eliza
November 19, 2015 8:47 am

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
Reply to  Eliza
November 19, 2015 8:48 am

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.

Reply to  Patrick B
November 19, 2015 9:07 am

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?

Reply to  Patrick B
November 19, 2015 9:23 am

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
Reply to  Patrick B
November 19, 2015 10:35 am

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

Reply to  Patrick B
November 19, 2015 11:31 am

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
Reply to  Patrick B
November 19, 2015 12:48 pm

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
Reply to  Patrick B
November 19, 2015 1:18 pm

@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
Reply to  Patrick B
November 19, 2015 10:28 pm

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.

Reply to  Patrick B
November 20, 2015 9:24 am

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

November 19, 2015 8:33 am

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

Reply to  AndyE
November 19, 2015 8:49 am

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
Reply to  AndyE
November 20, 2015 12:05 pm

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

Roy Spencer
November 19, 2015 8:34 am

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.

Reply to  Roy Spencer
November 19, 2015 11:37 am

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.

November 19, 2015 8:37 am

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.

Reply to  rabbit
November 19, 2015 8:52 am

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.

Reply to  ristvan
November 19, 2015 9:36 am

… 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).

Reply to  ristvan
November 19, 2015 12:32 pm

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

Reply to  ristvan
November 19, 2015 7:32 pm

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

Reply to  ristvan
November 20, 2015 3:37 am

“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.

Reply to  ristvan
November 20, 2015 4:19 am

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.

Reply to  rabbit
November 19, 2015 9:07 am

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

average joe
Reply to  rabbit
November 19, 2015 10:32 pm

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!

Reply to  average joe
November 20, 2015 3:39 am

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

November 19, 2015 8:42 am

” … 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.”

Reply to  rovingbroker
November 19, 2015 11:05 am

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
Reply to  Dahlquist
November 19, 2015 12:00 pm

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

Reply to  rovingbroker
November 19, 2015 4:51 pm

“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.

November 19, 2015 8:43 am

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!

Reply to  4caster
November 19, 2015 9:03 am

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

Reply to  4caster
November 19, 2015 11:56 am

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

Reply to  mothcatcher
November 19, 2015 6:49 pm

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

November 19, 2015 8:46 am

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.

November 19, 2015 8:48 am

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….

Reply to  Eliza
November 19, 2015 9:28 am

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.

Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2015 9:39 am

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
Reply to  Eliza
November 19, 2015 9:33 am

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
Reply to  george e. smith
November 19, 2015 1:05 pm

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
Reply to  Eliza
November 19, 2015 12:24 pm

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.

Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 19, 2015 12:35 pm

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?

Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 20, 2015 7:24 am

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.

November 19, 2015 8:48 am

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.

November 19, 2015 8:49 am

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

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 21, 2015 9:47 am

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!
November 19, 2015 8:53 am

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.

November 19, 2015 8:54 am

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.

November 19, 2015 9:00 am

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

Reply to  kamikazedave
November 19, 2015 9:07 am

Then please tweet about it to #cop21.

Reply to  kamikazedave
November 19, 2015 11:43 am

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.

November 19, 2015 9:02 am

This is interesting from Lamar’s investigation yesterday:

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 19, 2015 11:51 am

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

Reply to  RWturner
November 19, 2015 7:08 pm

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.

November 19, 2015 9:05 am

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

November 19, 2015 9:05 am

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
Reply to  4caster
November 19, 2015 10:41 pm

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.

Reply to  average joe
November 20, 2015 1:51 am


November 19, 2015 9:16 am

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

November 19, 2015 9:17 am

Correction climate always changes/naturally LOL

November 19, 2015 9:25 am

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.

Reply to  Eliza
November 19, 2015 9:42 am

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.

November 19, 2015 9:28 am

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

November 19, 2015 9:32 am

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

Reply to  Sir_H_Flashman
November 19, 2015 9:45 am

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

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 19, 2015 11:15 am

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

M Courtney
Reply to  Sir_H_Flashman
November 19, 2015 11:43 am

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.

November 19, 2015 9:39 am

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).

Reply to  Eliza
November 19, 2015 11:19 am

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

November 19, 2015 9:46 am

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

November 19, 2015 9:49 am

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

November 19, 2015 9:51 am

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.

Reply to  mpaul
November 19, 2015 9:53 am

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

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 20, 2015 11:16 am

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

November 19, 2015 10:03 am

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.

Reply to  Ric Werme
November 20, 2015 2:45 am

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

November 19, 2015 10:17 am

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.

November 19, 2015 10:46 am

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

November 19, 2015 10:53 am

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
November 19, 2015 10:57 am

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.

Reply to  Claude Harvey
November 19, 2015 11:25 am

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

November 19, 2015 11:02 am

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?”

Reply to  4caster
November 19, 2015 7:20 pm

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.

Reply to  4caster
November 19, 2015 11:05 pm

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

Reply to  4caster
November 22, 2015 1:10 pm

As bad as any other long time forecast

Mike Smith
November 19, 2015 11:04 am

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!

November 19, 2015 11:05 am

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

November 19, 2015 11:07 am

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.

Reply to  Michael Selden
November 19, 2015 11:43 am

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

Reply to  Felflames
November 19, 2015 11:52 am

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

Reply to  Michael Selden
November 19, 2015 12:43 pm

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

November 19, 2015 11:13 am

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.

Reply to  Resourceguy
November 19, 2015 11:57 am

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.

Reply to  Resourceguy
November 19, 2015 12:02 pm

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
November 19, 2015 11:18 am

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
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
November 19, 2015 3:19 pm

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.

November 19, 2015 11:32 am

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
November 19, 2015 11:40 am

Sounds like a job for Lois Lerner and John Koskinen.

November 19, 2015 11:42 am

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.

November 19, 2015 11:43 am

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.

Reply to  rah
November 19, 2015 11:54 am

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.

Reply to  Michael Selden
November 19, 2015 4:17 pm

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.

November 19, 2015 11:58 am

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

November 19, 2015 12:03 pm

(y) 🙂

November 19, 2015 12:35 pm

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
November 19, 2015 1:43 pm

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!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 20, 2015 12:33 pm

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
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 20, 2015 2:26 pm

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.

November 19, 2015 1:51 pm

That Washington Post article was painful to read and gives a pretty clear indication of how no amount of bad science and stonewalling is going to make any difference when journalists seem clueless what the real issues are. Demonstrated bad science from NOAA? Stonewalling congressional oversight? It seems that the author of the article couldn’t care less and went out of their way to imply the attempt at oversight is somehow political. Disgraceful.
The Orwellian money quote from NOAA:
“The notion that NOAA is ‘hiding something’ is also false.”
You refuse congressional oversight but you are not hiding anything? How is it that such brutal doublespeak garners no outrage? Even if the worst is proven true in this investigation, the media will show a similar disinterest. Journalism is no longer a profession.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
November 19, 2015 3:49 pm

Journalism is no longer a profession.

Journalism is now the oldest profession…

Reply to  opluso
November 19, 2015 4:49 pm

opluso on November 19, 2015 at 3:49 pm
“Journalism is now the oldest profession…”

Hmmm . . . .
The 3 oldest professions in order of their first appearance are:
1st came the witch doctor (shaman or medicine man)
Then there arrived simultaneously both the prostitute (not necessarily the sexual kind) and the journalist, but . . . on second thought they might have been the same person.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
November 19, 2015 4:23 pm

The issues must be framed and expressed in terms simple enough to impress an eighth grader.

November 19, 2015 1:55 pm

Bring forth the 10,000 ton steam roller destroyer of hard drives. But be sure to request high priority status for the request since the equipment and IT team are in high demand these days.

November 19, 2015 3:53 pm

It is time for NOAA to be closed down.
NOAA is obviously so corrupt and compromised and politicized that it has no credibility to offer the scientific community or the public.
NOAA is just a waste of space and money. Close NOAA down and fire everybody now.

Reply to  Sasha
November 19, 2015 5:44 pm

Pardon me, but don’t be a fool & throw the baby out with the bathwater. The daily operational aspects of NOAA (NWS & NESDIS) do a good & valid service to the public. Don’t say that it could be contracted out to the likes of Accuweather or the Weather Channel & such.
Guess where they get their observations from? (NOAA/NWS).
Guess where they get their forecast models from? (NOAA/NWS).
Guess where they get their doppler NEXRAD radar from? (NOAA/NWS).
Guess where they get their wx satellite data from? (NOAA/NESDIS).
Guess where the rest of the world meteorological organizations get the majority of the western hemisphere data from? (NOAA/NWS/NESDIS).
Do you really expect the general public to have to subscribe & pay for their tornado/hurricane/severe thunderstorm/blizzard watches & warnings when it is already paid for by their tax dollars? There is no profit in general operational meteorology & there is no incentive for private meteorology to develop new technology without a profit motive.
The NOAA/NESDIS facility that tracks & processes the NOAA POLAR & GOES East/West wx satellite raw data & distributes it to the NWS & public consumption (the wx sat imagery animation used everywhere) operated 24hrs/day in all critical weather with 99.8% data throughput on 10-15 *million* dollar annual budget…10-15 MILLION – not 100’s of millions or billions! That is chump change compared to what some agencies go through. Gee, that’s a rounding error with some agencies.
Now, granted, there are areas in NOAA that could stand to be trimmed, reigned in & even eliminated but I believe the majority of the problem is in upper management & I’m sure if the Dept of Commerce, NOAA & NESDIS administrators who are appointed by the administration had the full backing of the strong leadership of the administration, they could go through & clean house….and that could apply to any of the executive agencies.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  JKrob
November 19, 2015 6:49 pm

The problem is that the rot has spread so far now that the taxpayer cannot trust NOAA’s temperature takers. Citizen and independent records all over the country now diverge significantly from the bogus figures being reported as “data” by the trough-feeding bureaucratic swine we have so foolishly trusted to practice science rather than self-interest.

Reply to  JKrob
November 20, 2015 12:41 am

you make some good points which should be considered carefully.
The trouble here is that when the rot sets in, it is the credibility of the organization that is destroyed which makes any work under their logo suspect. A prime example of this is the University of East Anglia, who used to be all over the British media but have all but disappeared from it today. NOAA is the new UEA.

Reply to  Sasha
November 20, 2015 3:04 am

Sasha begins:

It is time for NOAA to be closed down.
NOAA is obviously so corrupt and compromised and politicized that it has no credibility to offer the scientific community or the public.
NOAA is just a waste of space and money. Close NOAA down and fire everybody now.

…and after a round of responses suggesting temporization (“… don’t be a fool & throw the baby out with the bathwater”) he continues:

The trouble here is that when the rot sets in, it is the credibility of the organization that is destroyed which makes any work under their logo suspect. A prime example of this is the University of East Anglia, who used to be all over the British media but have all but disappeared from it today. NOAA is the new UEA.

I’d go with that premise. The beneficial functions of NOAA stipulated by JKrob can be readily absorbed by other agencies of civil government. The dismemberment and eradication of NOAA would be of great benefit if only in the “pour encourager les autres” sense.
The Congress telling agencies of the executive branch:
“We brought you into this world, and we can sure as hell take you out of it!”

…[I]t shall be no longer malum in se for a citizen to pummel, cowhide, kick, gouge, cut, wound, bruise, maim, burn, club, bastinado, flay, or even lynch a [government] jobholder, and that it shall be malum prohibitum only to the extent that the punishment exceeds the jobholder’s deserts. The amount of this excess, if any, may be determined very conveniently by a petit jury, as other questions of guilt are now determined.

H.L. Mencken

Jeff Stanley
November 19, 2015 4:14 pm

Figure it out. If you work for the goobermint, if you’re funded by the goobermint, then you are the goobermint’s b*tch. Period, end of story. So if the goobermint has decided that Anthropogenic Weasels are threatening a Global Catastrophe, don’t whine that you can’t find enough weasels. STFU and go out and find them, b*tch, or GTF out.

November 19, 2015 4:29 pm

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, in his second letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, wrote “NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored . . .”
In the same letter Smith called those NOAA employees whistleblowers. Use of that specific term invokes some levels of protection for them against a vindictive upper management at NOAA.
Show me all the whistleblowers’ statements, please.

November 19, 2015 4:41 pm

If I understand what’s going on here correctly, NOAA made adjustments to temp data that does away with the pause. What does this do to all the studies that used the previous measurements? If the original measurements were “bad”, how long has NOAA been making and using “bad” measurements? I’m no scientist, but these are the first questions that come to mind for me.

RobertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  Brian McCool
November 19, 2015 11:30 pm

I have used the questionable Karl data as an example of the rubbish that is so often lauded at Australian ABC type websites which are very favourable to the GW theme.
Naturally my status is declared by the site respondents as that suited to the village idiot employment spectrum and The Appeal To Authority comments come up like sea level rise deluge over the next few years.
That is not the issue as it amuses me no end.
I am seeking some feedback and I do not seek a hippy lovefest or agreement about everything as is the wont of the luvvie sites.
Your post reflected similar thought to mine upon perusing this study once I was able to settle down after trying to compute that the old fashioned method- Sea Water Engine Intake Temperature method- was made superior to the more modern Water Buoys. These more technical Buoys, I assume, were created to enable better or more accurate temperature assessment outside the limited range of shipping lanes but over time ran some .12 cooler.
Buckets of varying type are also mentioned but surely Karl and Others are not claiming that buckets, manually tested for temperature, are part of this better dataset?
So Karl adjusts the data to favour the warmer Sea Engine Intakes measure and like a David Copperfield act the Pause disappears in front of us.
However does not the paper claim this creates a recent decadal rise of about .10 to .12 which relates to a century rise of about 1.2c
I am nowhere near versed on this subject and am way open to correction but I thought that .2 was the Schellnhuber horror per decade which led to the 2C per century Armageddon.
So even when a seemingly blatantly phony adjustment occurs it stills produces an end result lower than the IPCC lower estimate of 1.5 per century.
Does Karl now expect all the other alarmist organisations and individuals to denounce their previous data and studies and actually admit they were wrong and make even further mockery of that most anti science statement that ‘The Science Is Settled’?
Help me out here Brian or other posters,as so often, as a person without academic qualification, I read alarmist data and try to make sense of so much that comes across as illogical. So am I on the right bus if I speculate that this Karl study is very dodgy to both alarmist and sceptic alike in that it blatantly adjusts based on unsound reason and, if accepted by warming advocates, it questions and refutes most of their previous data and the conclusions drawn from that data?
And The Buckets everyone. Can someone explain these buckets in relation to the Engine Intake data or otherwise?
Even if your name is not Liza and you ain’t got holes in them.

richard verney
Reply to  RobertBobbert GDQ
November 20, 2015 2:56 am

“So Karl adjusts the data to favour the warmer Sea Engine Intakes measure and like “

Whilst the engine room is a warm environment and therefore has potential to warm the sea water/water used for engine cooling interchange, what people fail to appreciate is that ship’s do not draw SST, but rather that the sea water is drawn from depth.
As one knows, the temperature profile of the oceans varies with depth, and the depth at which the sea water is drawn varies between perhaps 3 to 13 metres 9it could even be more than that). Materially, the draft between vessels is a moveable feast, even the draft of the same vessel varies as stores and consumables are used, and with commercial ships cargoes are loaded and discharged etc.
So ships are never drawing sea water from a constant depth, and materially they are not drawing SST. Thus the seawater drawn into the engine room is cooler than SST.
The question here is whether the heat of the engine room is sufficient to warm the cooler than SST water up to SST temperatures, or above SST temperatures.
Account of the fact that ship’s do not draw SST but rather water from depth is not sufficiently taken into account. In fact, it would not surprise me if ship log data under recorded SST even though the warm environment of the engine room has no doubt warmed very slightly the water passing through the engine manifold where temperatures are measured.
Incidentally, I am very familiar with ship log data, having spent about 30 years studying the same, and I consider it probable that the adjustment for engine room heating is in fact the wrong way round since there ahs been a failure to appreciate that the original source of the water is not SST but rather water drawn at considerable depth usually say 7 to 10 metres, and the consequence of that exceeds the adjustment appropriate for the warm engine room environment..

November 19, 2015 5:22 pm

NOAAWhistleblowers finally cannot keep quiet anymore. Criminal fraud and conspiracy to commit the fraud carries stiff penalties. Send the directors to jail and fine them. Civil suits are to follow in amounts of $ TRILLIONS worldwide. Some will come clean and get better treatment. Lawsuits will be the ruin of the unrepentant criminals perpetrating fraud in promoting Global Warming Fraud.

November 19, 2015 6:36 pm

And of course the EPA and CIA stand behind the fine work that John Beale did for them.
In this fight politics matters a great deal. Al Gore among others created the funding monster that ate climate science from his seat in Congress. It’s only right that the fix comes from there as well.

Gloateus Maximus
November 19, 2015 7:12 pm

NOAA, like all government agencies, is a criminal conspiracy.

November 19, 2015 7:30 pm

The elephant in the room is that Karl et al proves beyond a shadow of doubt that it is utterly simple beyond reason that the climate record can be manipulated to whatever ends are desired.
This raises the specter that all scientists on the federal “dole” are as suspect as any on a private sector stipend.

Reply to  Neo
November 19, 2015 9:22 pm

Writes Neo:

The elephant in the room is that Karl et al proves beyond a shadow of doubt that it is utterly simple beyond reason that the climate record can be manipulated to whatever ends are desired.
This raises the specter that all scientists on the federal “dole” are as suspect as any on a private sector stipend.

These plain facts – that the books can be (and have been) “cooked” by the climate catastrophe quacks who have maneuvered themselves into positions in the various bureaucracies entrusted with the maintenance of these records – is something the Social Justice Warriors invested in this civilization-wrecking meme (“man-made climate change”) will not accept in public discourse. It’s a plain fact, backed not only by best appreciations of what “the consensus” have done but by investigation of how and why they’ve done it (as is almost certain to be manifest in the communications they’ve conducted within the cabal).
But when the latter are about to be brought out for public examination, the SJWs “double down” by condemning the search for such evidence of collusion – reasonably to be revealed when the e-mails and other correspondence of Karl et alia on this incompetent dollop of duplicity are disgorged under rule of law – as “conspiracy theory.”
Moronic, ain’t it? If the indicators trend ineluctably to the conduct of conspiracy, you’re not supposed to come to a theoretical (abstract) concept that embraces the idea that the “malevolent jobholders” on the public payroll had to have combined to foist this misrepresentation of factual reality upon the trusting and the gullible for political purposes.
But you’re not supposed to say that – or even approach the issue with that possibility under consideration – because….
Well, it’s a conspiracy theory and that means you’re on the wrong side of history, a bible-and-gun-clutching Neanderthal, a “denier,” a “birther,” and probably a racist in the bargain.
“Embrace the suck,” Neo. This Social Justice Warrior feces-festival shows no sign of getting better before it’s going to get worse.

Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power… Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

— Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388

Reply to  darklaw
November 20, 2015 3:52 am

Why ??

Reply to  Marcus
November 20, 2015 4:29 am

With regard to the letter of Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (National Socialist – Bantustan Dallas), it’s to read the following:

In one fell swoop, you have accused a host of different individuals of wrongdoing. You have accused NOAA’s top research scientists of scientific misconduct. By extension, you have also accused the peer-reviewers at one of our nation’s most prestigious academic journals, Science, of participating in this misconduct (or at least being too incompetent to notice what was going on). If that weren’t enough, you are intimating a grand conspiracy between NOAA and the White House to doctor climate science to advance administration policy. Presumably this accusation extends to Administrator Sullivan herself. And all of these indictments are conjured out of thin air, without you presenting any factual basis for these sweeping accusations – exposing this so-called ‘investigtion’ for what it truly is: a witch hunt designed to smear the reputations of eminent scientists for partisan gain.
This entire fiasco reminds me of another hype-driven, fact-lacking controversy: the so-called “Climategate.”

To which the proper response of anyone frequenting WUWT is inevitably going to be: “Yeah. So?”
Rep.Johnson (a nurse, not a lawyer, and therefore pardonably ignorant of law) fails to distinguish between suspicion(and investigation) of malfeasance in public office and both accusation and indictment. Presumably she’s got a staff which includes lawyers, and as a U.S. Representative she has access to the legal staff of the House for advice, but either didn’t do so or didn’t elect to take whatever advice she’d gotten. Perhaps she’d succumbed to Gadarene enthusiasm in her letter to Rep. Smith.
Or desperation.
Like most incumbent politicians of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP), Rep. Johnson understands that the actions of the NOAA bureaucrats (no matter how sterling their credentials and public reputations might have been before they’d gotten pantsed by exposure of their book-cooking idiocy)
are collusive with the policies announced and implemented by our Indonesian-in-Chief, “Barry” Soebarkah (alias “Barack Hussein Obama II” and “Harrison J. Bounel”), and intentionally duplicitous. If she doesn’t know that the editors of Science were accessories after the fact to Karl et al 2015 in the perpetration of pal review (rather than properly blinded peer review), then among the subjects to be discussed is her own incompetence; she admits knowledge about Climategate and the e-mail exchanges therein which document the co-ordination of review subversion among “the consensus.”
For some reason, darklaw seems to think that reading Rep. Johnson’s incompetently composed letter to Rep. Smith will in any way persuade “the true skeptics among [us] to receive this dollop of leftard flop-sweat as anything other than convincing evidence of corruption all the way up through the office of Rep. Johnson to the avatar of Shiva, the Destroyer, occupying that big, comfy chair behind the Resolute desk.

My main beef with modern leftism isn’t even that it’s rooted in the stupid idea of equality but that it lives, breathes, and gains succor and strength through the most unabashed sort of hypocrisy I’ve ever seen, and I thought I’d seen ’em all.

Jim Goad

November 19, 2015 8:49 pm

We already know they are cheating, as Steve Goddard alone have documented for years, ref.:

November 19, 2015 9:48 pm

KARL2015 is such a complete disaster that even NASA whistleblowers are aghast at this feeble attempt to fabricate a “Pausebuster”…
CAGW alarmists had no choice. This disparity between CAGW hypothetical projections vs. reality have already EXCEEDED the necessary criteria to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis (2+ standard deviations for 15+ years).
CAGW alarmists will likely get away with KARL2015, and will continue fabricating new paper like MICKEYMOUSE2017, BIGBIRD2019, BERT&EARNIE2020 to keep the projections vs. reality disparities below 2 standard deviations. They have no choice at this stage.
PauseBusters Theme song:
If there’s something strange
and your model ‘s no good
Who ya gonna call?
If there’s something weird
and a FOIA appears
Who you gonna call?
I ain’t afraid of no pause
I ain’t afraid of no pause

November 20, 2015 1:45 am

‘cast doubt on the scientific integrity of NOAA’s global temperature reconstructions.’
you cannot lose that which you never had , meanwhile the NOAA , like the EPA, will not change its bad habits until the person in the ‘big chair’ no longer finds these bad habits ‘useful’
No matter how many or how loudly whistles are blown.

bit chilly
November 20, 2015 2:16 am

what is the big fuss about. the american business world works the exact same way. having worked for a large american multinational until i left to retain my sanity and not end up in jail for the killing the clown running the facility i was employed by i saw this first hand. friends working for other american companies state the exact same thing.
every single layer of management sucks up to the one above, there is never any dissent by a subordinate, they always toe the management line, even when it is driving the profitability of company off a cliff due to some senior executive being sold the latest and greatest management technique (usually developed in a totally different industry and not applicable to others) and the subordinates being too scared to question it for fear of damaging their career. personal integrity is lacking at all levels of many american businesses from what i can see.
management personnel only have one goal, get to executive level where the pay off amounts are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and they will kiss enough ass,and swallow as much pride as need be to get there. just the same as government works.

Reply to  bit chilly
November 20, 2015 7:07 am

Big difference — private money is not really my business, public money is.

November 20, 2015 4:53 am

Some have different views of Lamar Smiths witch hunt:
These might be the most outrageous statements ever made by a Chair of the Committee on Science.
In one fell swoop, you have accused a host of different individuals of wrongdoing. You have accused NOAA’s top research scientists of scientific misconduct. By extension, you have also accused the peer-reviewers at one of our nation’s most prestigious academic journals, Science, of participating in this misconduct (or at least being too incompetent to notice what was going on). If that weren’t enough, you are intimating a grand conspiracy between NOAA and the White House to doctor climate science to advance administration policy. Presumably this accusation extends to Administrator Sullivan herself. And all of these indictments are conjured out of thin air, without you presenting any factual basis for these sweeping accusations – exposing this so-called “investigation” for what it truly is: a witch hunt designed to smear the reputations of eminent scientists for partisan gain.

Reply to  sergeiMK
November 20, 2015 6:18 am

Soooo, in other words she said ” Dang, they caught us !! “

bit chilly
Reply to  sergeiMK
November 20, 2015 6:50 am

what part of this do you have a problem with ?

Reply to  sergeiMK
November 20, 2015 7:07 am

“These might be the most outrageous statements ever made by a Chair of the Committee on Science.”
I doubt it.
“In one fell swoop, you have accused a host of different individuals of wrongdoing.”
Yes they have. Yes they have.
“You have accused NOAA’s top research scientists of scientific misconduct. By extension, you have also accused the peer-reviewers at one of our nation’s most prestigious academic journals, Science, of participating in this misconduct (or at least being too incompetent to notice what was going on).”
Exactly. Correct. That is exactly what is happening.
“If that weren’t enough, you are intimating a grand conspiracy between NOAA and the White House to doctor climate science to advance administration policy. Presumably this accusation extends to Administrator Sullivan herself.”
Yes. And by extension, those who appointed her. The Whitehouse.
“And all of these indictments are conjured out of thin air, without you presenting any factual basis for these sweeping accusations – exposing this so-called “investigation” for what it truly is: a witch hunt designed to smear the reputations of eminent scientists for partisan gain.”
Oh there is more than enough factual basis to justify at least opening an investigation. Sometimes you need to investigate to find out if there is a problem or not.
If it was conjured up out of thin air and there was nothing to it all, then NOAA would and should gladly and quickly release all their internal documentation and emails immediately and put out this little wildfire before it can gain any tracking at all. Just shine the light around the room to show there is nothing untoward going on here. How hard is that? Easy peasy.
But…. they are not doing that. They are circling the wagons and battening down the hatches. All personnel to fire stations!
And most importantly they are refusing to obey the law of the land, the FOI legislation, by refusing to release the emails that the Science committee has a legal right to review. Ooooohhhhhh….. that doesn’t bode well at all for NOAA.
A publicly owned organization like NOAA is accountable to the public. The Science committee is the representatives of the public. They oversee NOAA. NOAA must report to them. The emails belong to NOAA which, in turn, belongs to the taxpayers. Do not ever forget that these NOAA personnel are on the public payroll. They are accountable to the taxpayers. They always will be.

Reply to  sergeiMK
November 20, 2015 7:10 am

Quoting Rep. Johnson (NSDAP – Bantustan Dallas), sergeiMK pastes:

These might be the most outrageous statements ever made by a Chair of the Committee on Science.

…while ignoring the fact that the statements of Rep. Smith (R – Texas) are entirely in accord with indications of concerted malpractice (dereliction of duty in terms of failure of adherence to scientific integrity) and malfeasance (the knowing utterance of falsehoods under the color of federal government authority) received by Rep. Smith and the rest of the Committee’s members during the course of investigating Karl et al 2015 and its peculiar place in the pantheon of propaganda surrounding the “Clean Power Plan” sabotage campaign being inflicted upon the citizens of these United States by a federal chief executive who is himself arguably not a citizen of our republic, but simply a jihadi alien engaged in taqqiya the better to pursue the destruction of the U.S. economy.
That dollop of dung moved by Rep. Johnson didn’t wash when Nurse Ratched’s letter was read in the PDF, and it reeks no less in sergeiMK‘s excerpt.
As I’ve said elsewhere on this Web site, I have no brief for Rep. Smith (or his political faction), but I extol his value as an attack dog pursuing this particular batch of vermin infesting the federal bureaucracy under our Rat King substitute for a legitimate president of these United States.
Sic ’em, Rep. Smith.

Earlier this summer, a group of “scientists” led by a couple of US government employees, published an utterly fraudulent paper which, in effect, erased the decline in global surface temperatures. They did this by the rather elegant method of simply changing the recorded temperatures to something else.

This is just another example of the utter lawlessness that has infected the Executive Branch agencies under Barack Obama. The only exception to providing agency documents to the Congress is executive privilege. There is no special privilege available for the political hacks masquerading as scientists in NOAA. This has been hashed out thoroughly since Watergate. The only question is whether Smith, as a committee chairman, can make his demand stick. The agency is refusing Smith’s request for one reason: they know this action they have taken is in support of Obama’s political agenda.

The more we know about how NOAA, and the climate change Jerry Sanduskys funded by NOAA, operate the more it is apparent that the entire field is fraudulent up to its myopic eyeballs and exists solely to suck cash out of the federal government and to arrogate power and importance to a lot of very little and inconsequential men whose inadequate personal lives make them want to lord it over the rest of us.

— streif “Climate science frauds try to hide data from Congress” (31 October 2015)

November 20, 2015 6:02 am

I just watched the five part series on Science channel “When We Left the Earth NASA Missions” I strongly recommend that all watch it. After working at TVA for about a year as a contractor on the startup of one of their Nuclear Power Plants, I have an excellent idea as to why NASA had problems – Large government bureaucracies are prone to breeding, propagating and promoting, ignoring complacency and even shooting the messenger when it is pointed out. The root problem of the space program failures can all be attributed to this inbreed complacency, NOAA, IRS, VA, the Secret Service, whatever government Agency you can name has the same problem. And worse yet, literally all of the early, useful, informative texts, manuals, guides on Risk Analysis, MORT – Management Oversight Root Tree, Incident Analysis, etc. were developed by the government or contractors for the government. – Yet it seems the government only uses them half heartedly or, as in this article like the peer review, bypasses them or rushes through them.

Reply to  usurbrain
November 20, 2015 10:35 am

Complacency is not the appropriate word choice for management issues in the agency cases you cite. That word implies there was only a problem of attention, not intentional mission divergence. Look again.

Reply to  usurbrain
November 20, 2015 5:57 pm

The largest government bureaucracy is the Defense Department. It has more than half the federal budget.

Reply to  davidgmills
November 20, 2015 6:45 pm

Yes, Military spending is the largest part of Discretionary spending, and is more than 50% of Discretionary spending. It has been less than 25% of the TOTAL budget since Clinton.
It hasn’t been above 50% of the federal budget since JFK was in office. And has been exceeded by either SS or Medicare since Clinton.
Even now, about 10 percent of the “military” spending (the DOD budget) is spent on “Greening” the military due to Obama mandates to achieve 20% of their power from “renewables” and a 20% reduction in energy usage. Thus they have had to spend large sums on weatherization, insulation and purchasing/constructing Wind farms and solar farms. These same “Sustainability” mandates have been invoked upon ALL government agencies, making their budgets larger and increasing the flow of “Green” cash to the “renewable” energy scammers. The Utility I retired from has a $0.03 /kWh contract with the local AFB, however, they are forced to buy electricity from a wind farm nearby at $0.25 / kWh whenever available. And YOU (and me) get to help pay the wind farm owners to get rich. Obama’s “Green Jobs.”

November 20, 2015 10:00 am

The ‘Big 3’ in surface temperature products are; NOAA, UEA’s CRU & NASA’s GISS.
Given there was an internal or external ‘whistleblower(s)’ releasing the UEA/CRU emails which became known as Climategate
Given that there are internal NOAA whistleblowers providing Congress info about the NOAA processes leading to the integrityless Karl et al 2015 research by NOAA.
Given two of the ‘Big 3’ in surface temperature products have had whistleblowers, then shouldn’t it be considered good logical form to think that there is a GISS ‘whistleblower-in-waiting’ ?
I am eternally curious about things that look like patterns.

Proud Skeptic
November 20, 2015 4:36 pm

The tone of the WaPo article is very different from the tone of this article…big surprise. To read the article, many of the accusations being leveled at NOAA are unfounded.
Personally, I never liked the whole “massage the data to get the desired results” thing. Stinks.

November 20, 2015 5:16 pm

The probability of this NOAA fraud being ignored and/or excused by authorities is close to 99.99999999999999999999%. You all know why that is!!!!

November 20, 2015 5:54 pm

A scientist being a whistleblower? Give me a break. I will believe it when I see it. To call these people whistleblowers is a joke. Whistleblowers identify themselves. Whistleblowers who don’t come out of the closet can’t have their “facts” scrutinized.
My problem with the whole climate issue is that scientists never stand up for anything anymore, if they ever did. Had scientists taken on pier review and this system years ago, then we wouldn’t be where we are now.
Frankly, if 90% of the scientists say that government needs to do something, I support the government doing something. I think that is generally good policy.
The problem is that scientists have allowed a few scientists in powerful positions to hijack the scientific method and then these scientists manufacture the consent of the vast majority of the scientific community.

November 20, 2015 6:20 pm

It may not always have been the case, but the idea of there being integrity, scientific or otherwise, at NOAA nowadays is a laughable non sequitur.

Brian H
November 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Scientists couldn’t care less about waterway docking structures (“piers”). Quality control of publications by their peers is of vital interest, however.

November 21, 2015 8:25 am

Lest we forget, these emails are probably copied by the dozen.

%d bloggers like this: