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.
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.
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?
; )
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). http://www.wxmaps.org/pix/analyses.html
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.
Just as I said, they will ignore the subpoena(s):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/24/noaa-chief-to-lawmaker-on-climate-change-inquiry-i-will-not-allow-anyone-to-coerce-the-scientists-who-work-for-me/
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.
4caster,
We are always open to new predictions and forecasts.
Please give us some supporting information/data.
As bad as any other long time forecast
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’
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/congressman-claims-noaa-whistleblowers-told-him-climate-study-was-rushed/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
michael
When a Government lies to its people? They have built this and rushed it …in an agenda driven style for the Paris event!
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.
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.
Michael,
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.
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.
Bob,
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.