300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’

gigo-noaa

The following letter has been sent to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith, regarding NOAA’s “pause buster” data shenanigans that we highlighted back in the summer of 2015.

The issue is with bad data, as Dr. Pat Michaels Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. Chip Knappenberger observed related to the switch from buckets on a rope to engine water inlets for measuring sea surface temperature:

“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,”  “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”

I’ll say. As Bob Tisdale and I wrote back in June:

“If we subtract the ERSST.v3b (old) data from the new ERSST.v4 data, Figure 11, we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did.”

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise. Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

The letter sent to Chairman Lamar Smith says:

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

“In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

For those that don’t know, Federal agencies that collect data for public use and policy decision are required to adhere to the Data Quality Act by law. The purpose is to:

 “…ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

In my opinion, both NOAA (Karl and Peterson) and NASA (Gavin Schmidt) regularly flout this law. They need to be taken to task for it.

The letter follows along with a list of signatories.


 

January 25, 2016
Chairman Lamar Smith
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
Dear Chairman Smith,

We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act. This is an issue of international relevance because of the weight given to U.S. Government assessments during international negotiations such as the IPCC.

The Data Quality Act required government-wide guidelines to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information,” that was disseminated to the public. Individual agencies, such as the EPA, NOAA and many others were required to issue corresponding guidelines and set up mechanisms to allow affected parties to seek to correct information considered erroneous.

We remind you that controversy previously arose over EPA’s apparent failure to comply with these guidelines in connection with its Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which was the subject of a report by the EPA Office of the Inspector General in 2011, see http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/20110926-11-p-0702.pdf In that case, EPA failed to comply with peer review requirements for a “highly influential scientific assessment” and argued that the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding was not a “highly influential” scientific assessment. If it wasn’t, then it’s hard to imagine what would be. (For a contemporary discussion of the EPA’s stance see
http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/04/epa-the-endangerment-finding-was-not-a-highly-influentialscientific-
assessment/ ).

In our opinion, in respect to Karl et al. 2015 and related documents, NOAA has failed to observe the OMB (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act, for peer review of “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific assessments.”

We urge you to focus on these important compliance issues. For your consideration we attach a draft letter which directly connects these issues to your committee’s prior request for documents.

Sincerely,
(List of signatories and tag lines)


SIGNATORIES as of 1/20/16: Signatories_HCSST_20Jan2016 (PDF)

UPDATE: The final list of signatories is here: 300_Signatories (PDF)

 

 

349 thoughts on “300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’

      • Eye halve a spelling chequer
        It came with my pea sea
        It plainly marques four my revue
        Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

        Eye strike a key and type a word
        And weight four it two say
        Weather eye am wrong oar write
        It shows me strait a weigh.

        As soon as a mist ache is maid
        It nose bee fore two long
        And eye can put the error rite
        Its rare lea ever wrong.

        Eye have run this poem threw it
        I am shore your pleased two no
        Its letter perfect awl the weigh
        My chequer tolled me sew.

    • Either could be used Flaunt: to show a lack of respect for; Flout: To show contempt for. But for the purpose of the article I agree that Flout is probably more accurate.

      • That’s a pretty obscure definition of flaunt. Flout is easy to understand and doesn’t require an appeal to “The Dictionary of MistakesThat Became Acceptable “(global warming is in there too).

      • Not in my dictionary

        flaunt
        flɔːnt/Submit
        verb
        display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
        “newly rich consumers eager to flaunt their prosperity”
        synonyms: show off, display ostentatiously, draw attention to, make a (great) show of, put on show, put on display, parade, exhibit; More
        dress or behave in a sexually provocative way.

      • flout is to openly disregard and thence BREAK the law, contemptuously.
        flaunt is to ostentatiously display in order to provoke envy or admiration, OR, to show defiance

  1. I fantasize the new R. POTUS will changes new agency heads with identifying and reversing all the practices and results of data-mishandling. With instant termination for foot-draggers, throughout.

    • More likely a new R. POTUS would simply charge the new agency heads to make sure their practices and results adhere to his (that’s right, HIS) agenda. Politicians are always politicians no matter which side of the isle they come from.

      • “no matter which side of the isle they come from”

        Freudian slip or intentional? Either way very apt, heh.

      • I understand your cynicism, Tom B., but, I don’t think all politicians are morally equivalent.

        The new Republican POTUS just might be all about truth and data. Ben Carson and Ted Cruz both certainly would be (as demonstrated by their stellar track record for honesty and accuracy).

      • OK UK, per 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, she can have not more than ten years per count, currently over 1,300. Or is that not the time you were considering?

      • Tom; I’m with Janice. I think Cruz, Rand and Carson would hold true to their words. If they don’t, I give up. I’ll join you in complete distrust.

      • You won’t get a republican president, britain won’t leave the EU and the Euro won’t collapse. They are all political constructs which will be defended until your last penny, centime, cent.

      • It really doesn’t matter what the president does. The bureaucracy never changes. It’s the bureaucracy that runs the govt.

      • Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises,
        Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
        Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
        Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices
        That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
        Will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming,
        The clouds methought would open and show riches
        Ready to drop upon me that, when I waked,
        I cried to dream again.

    • I fantasize that a new POTUS will charge those department heads and cooperating subordinates who have been violating the law, with crimes which upon conviction will prevent their ever working in government again! (This applies to IRS, EPA, DOE, DOJ, DOS, and ABC through XYZ)

    • I must be getting old and cynical. All I want in an R POTUS is the ability to speak a coherent sentence without the use of a teleprompter, and can give a speech to a gaggle of 6 year olds without looking like he is watching a tennis match

  2. I am stunned that there is a Data Quality Act in the first place. For laws like this to be passed suggests science, esp climate science, is criminally corrupt to the core. Well who’d have thought that?

    • Nothing sinister here. DQA is how private industry show that an environmental cleanup of contamination is completed to regulations for example.

      In rare cases, government employees have to be reminded that regulations apply to them. I once informed an NRC inspector who was going to write a Notice of Violation (NOV) concerning a test I was running of the federal penalty for making a material false statement. An NOV is a public record. I would take it to the nearest federal court house and file a complaint.

      In America, the legal system allows private citizens to petition the government. I have found that government bullies are afraid of the government.

    • Having been employed by a Federal agency where managers and executives were fired, escorted to the door, arrested and prosecuted for falsifying data; it is not a joke, nor is it new.

      Any organization measured by goals, volume, productivity workhour usage are susceptible to scam artists using data collection, storage and analysis opportunities to ‘adjust’ historical and current data to make themselves look better or to earn higher bonuses and awards or honor.

      Think of an older IRS scandal where employee productivities were constantly being elevated until IRS regions were expecting IRS reviewers to process something like 90 tax submissions per hour on average. A couple of regional IRS offices expected an employee to process a tax submission every 15 seconds.

      This all came out when employees were admitting to shredding or trashing piles of submissions just to keep pace. But the driver for the absurd processing rates were executives and managers inflating their employee productivity rates.
      In order for executives to continue meeting and beating assigned goals, they had to keep boosting their productivity submissions; all while more and more taxpayers were complaining about slow processing and returns.

      Honest well kept data is the lifeblood for research, government and industry. Falsified, i.e. ‘adjusted data’ without detailed accurate metadata along with complete justification documentation for every individual adjustment plus keeping accurate untouched original data, is simply fraud.

      Perhaps it is time to extend that definition somewhat? As replication and verification are so dependent on accurate available data; expand the definition to guarantee complete information access to all seeking that information or cancel reference listings and published research. Leave the researchers to answer to their funding organizations, e.g. government, for their lack of product.

      • Agreed. That is exactly what happened in the department I worked for as soon as arbitrary targets were brought in. The clever/unscrupulous thrived, the honest folk got caned.

      • I had a great boss, actually one of several great bosses, who had developed a number of sayings. Sayings that summed a great deal of knowledge into simple sayings.

        One of his favorites was “People do what you inspect, not what you expect”; meaning that workers focus on what they’re measured by. What people are measured by is generally based on fiscal and management practices not service performance; basically meaning that micro-managing people almost always hurts what you are attempting to accomplish as a business.

        Another of his favorite sayings was:
        “Never try to be first. Everyone hates whoever is judged as first or best.”
        “Never allow yourself to be last. All of management inspects or second guesses everything someone in last place does.”
        “The best place to be is somewhere in the middle; no one expects too much of you nor hates you for being first and no one is measuring your every move just waiting for you to make a mistake.”

        Government workers generally excel at doing what is inspected, not what is expected. Long term government workers are also very good at never being first or ending up last so that much of their work escapes detailed observations.

        An exception to this practice occurs every year at merit review. One of those absurd government rules is that few workers can be exceptional, so most bosses limit their ‘exceptional’ ratings to just two employees a year.

        An employee judged ‘exceptional’ rates a higher percentage salary increase/bonus, plus their personal file gets to keep the ‘exceptional’ rating for a couple of years.

        Employees judged ‘insufficient’ are supposed to receive education on their weak spots and specific mentoring to help them strengthen their skills; additional responsibilities on their bosses that the bosses prefer to avoid.

        Most employees get the generic ‘sufficient’ rating.

        Government ‘exceptional’ work is described as accomplishing all the work expected of them and accomplishing significant work not expected of the employee; the classic ‘going above the call of duty’ phrase.

        Unfortunately, most long term government workers that have learned to never excel or never absolutely fail rarely accomplish more than what is expected of them. These same workers get livid if/when the boss informs them that they are judged ‘standard or sufficient’ at merit time.

        So the bosses often treat the ‘exceptional’ ratings as personal bonuses or bribes for certain people.

        Once I reached HQ staff, I was deemed a bit of a trouble maker who was always judged just short of exceptional, which meant I was ‘sufficient’.

        Do I need to better define who the unscrupulous and clever workers are?

        Excellent description David Johnson

  3. Skeptics make the same political mistakes over and over again.

    Without going into specifics, it would have been better to have 200 rock solid names, or 250 good ones, or even 290 credible ones, than a list of 300 plus with known crackpots included. Opponents will seize upon the crackpots, and use this to discredit the whole list.

    I’m not going to get into a naming contest and debate with anyone here, so don’t bother challenging my assertion with specifics, or ask me to be specific. People who truly follow this issue from both a scientific and political perspective can recognize the crackpots on the list. In this age of context free strawmen being the primary mode of communication and persuasion, why on Earth would you give such ammunition to the opposing side?

      • Marcus:
        Why do you disagree with his (Charles) conclusion (expectation!) that the CAGW elite will exploit any weakness in ANY list of people available to them that criticizes their government paychecks and government power?

      • RA-

        Maybe Marcus wasn’t referring to the fact that they will tear any list apart, weakness or not. But even “crackpots” should want governmental organizations to provide Quality Data! Why would anyone be stupid enough to fight against a letter demanding that the Quality Data Act be followed? It would only expose them as being people AGAINST the quality data act….which would be a BAD thing….right?

      • “Why would anyone be stupid enough to fight against a letter demanding that the Quality Data Act be followed? It would only expose them as being people AGAINST the quality data act….which would be a BAD thing….right?”

        Why would anyone object to being asked to stop beating their wife? That would expose them as being FOR wife beating.

        I will spell it out. If you insist someone stick to a certain standard there is an implied accusation that that person is not sticking to that standard. They have a right to object to the implied criticism.

        Aphan, I respectfully ask that you not tell lies here, sticking to the truth will be more succesful in the long run!

      • This is a completely valid statement. NOAA will claim that it was just doing it’s job and provide the same justifications it has already stated. If the credibility of this list of objectors can be questioned, that will be implied or stated outright. The truth won’t really be known unless NOAA internal communications reveal a conspiracy to create false data. It’s possible they are actually dumb enough to think they found a better way to measure temps.

      • seaice1,

        Ah…about time you showed up to champion your wacko brand of logic here.

        “Why would anyone object to being asked to stop beating their wife? That would expose them as being FOR wife beating.”

        Really, really bad analogy. It’s a lot more like 300 people writing a letter asking for congress to make sure that the data isn’t being beaten up. If it’s NOT being beaten up, then the only ones wasting their time is congress and it will be made known that it’s NOT being beaten up. The innocent have no reason to object to an investigation because it will only prove them innocent.

        “I will spell it out. If you insist someone stick to a certain standard there is an implied accusation that that person is not sticking to that standard. They have a right to object to the implied criticism.”

        The field of SCIENCE insists that everyone sticks to a certain standard. If everyone was sticking to those standards, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. People who ARE sticking to the standard should welcome a chance to be vindicated. But you’re entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

        “Aphan, I respectfully ask that you not tell lies here, sticking to the truth will be more succesful in the long run!”

        Oh please, I’ve told no lies here and your version of “the truth” is always hilarious.

    • Are you implying that it is OK for the CAGW crowd to have known crackpots but not the non-CAGW crowd?

      One man’s crackpot is another man’s authority figure.

      In any case, it is not the messenger that is important here, it is the message.

      • “it is not the messenger that is important here, it is the message”

        I wish that that were true. Unfortunately we live in a world where these people will attack anybody that disrupts their belief system. If somebody has already been labelled a crackpot, they will be singled out and used to attack the whole message.

      • Yeah, but Mark – I see PhD after many of the names, but I do not [see] “CP”.

        /grin

        [More important, there are no PC’s (politically correct). .mod]

    • Yes I agree, note that I didn’t sign. I can be more effective here. But, if it moves Smith to action, mission accomplished even if some folks [on the opposing side] whine about some names they don’t like.

      For that matter, the opposing side hates just about everyone on that list.

      • I just “checked it out on Google”, you gotta be careful when casting aspersions like that.
        Trust me.

      • I just found a guy with the initials dp on the registered sex offenders list. I guess anything you say should be associated with that, rather than whether or not you like quality data or not. (eye roll)

      • If you don’t produce something that proves the name you searched corresponds to the actual person, then you have just opened yourself up to actions.
        So, what you got ?
        A link ?

      • James – that would be a question for Charles the Moderator. My own comment states clearly that I find registered sex offenders to be an awkward association.

      • oliver is a well known on various forums with his idee fixee (neutron repulsion)
        it’s not his conviction record, alone, that makes him stand out from the herd.

      • charles the mod is quite on point.
        we’ve heard about putting lipstick on the pig, right?
        meet ‘dirty sanchez on the mona lisa’

      • I’ve posted links and responses but the are caught in moderation. Oliver was banned from this site and his home page, easily found, was one of the links. This post may also be moderated. I don’t blame Anthony – he’s a piece of work with his iron sun nonsense.

      • Ok…you posted a news article showing that person was charged with a sex offense.

        *You did not prove that person is on the “registered sex offender” list.
        *You did not prove that person is an incompetent scientist

        See here’s the beautiful and ironic thing about this letter that seems to have escaped so many people here. Anyone who would fight against such a letter, for ANY reason at all, will be automatically be singled out as someone who does NOT want the Quality Data Act to be followed…which would be really odd…especially for a scientist. Logic dictates that ALL scientists, no matter what their personal philosophies are, should WANT and DEMAND the highest quality data possible. Because, the rigors of SCIENCE demands that in the first place!

        Any and all people, ESPECIALLY scientists, who try to discredit an attempt to provide the world WITH the highest quality of data possible, will immediately look suspicious, un-credible, and obviously motivated by something OTHER THAN the truth that can only be obtained with the highest quality of data possible!

        In other words, imagine that 300 people, who are all former mafia hit men, sign a letter explaining that a former congressional Act (declaring that burning kittens as fuel will not be tolerated) is NOT being followed by the people who work with kittens, and they demand that congress puts a stop to it now! Anyone…and I mean literally anyone…who actually steps forward and tries to impede that letter in ANY way and for ANY REASON, an yes-even because all of it’s signatories are murderers, could only be motivated by some sickening, demented, or insane reasoning in which attacking the credibility of EVERYONE on that list IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN, or of a HIGHER PRIORITY THAN, halting the continued practice of burning kittens as fuel!

        Anyone whose passion or profession requires them to love or honor or uphold the sanctity of kittens (Quality data) should automatically and enthusiastically SUPPORT the letter’s premise and demands immediately and fully. After all, the personal characters of the letter’s signers (murderers) is completely irrelevant to the preservation and sanctity of the kittens involved. (The Data). Only people who really no not CARE about the sanctity of the kittens, (the Quality of the Data) and for some odd, sick, or selfish reason really HATES kittens (quality data) or NEEDS for those kittens (quality data) to be burned as fuel, would ever focus first, or even solely, upon the character of the people who signed the letter!

        So let them come. Let’s carefully note and collect the evidence regarding ANYONE who speaks out against the letter itself, or tries to distract or discredit the letter by attacking the personal character of anyone or all of, the people who signed it. Because by doing so, they will give us empirical evidence that the quality of the data, and by default the work done with that data- is NOT their highest priority, and that something OTHER than the most truthful, most accurate conclusions possible must be motivating them.

        I think it’s freaking brilliant.

      • dp: That 2008 news article said that Oliver Manuel was charged. You asserted that he was convicted and put on a reg. sex offender list. Was he convicted? Was he falsely accused?

        While your concerns are valid, this very public forum seems grossly inappropriate for such a discussion. If he was acquitted, you are dragging up things that would be VERY emotionally hurtful to him and his family, not to mention, casting a slur on his character.

        Time to take this topic off the public airwaves.

        I’ve known people falsely accused. It appears that you have not, from your so freely talking about such things essentially, on a megaphone, standing in the middle of a shopping mall.

      • dp: just saw your 9:31pm post — I’m not going to even go look at those links, for I have no way of verifying their accuracy. They may substantiate what you said above, but, it is STILL time to take this subject off the public airwaves.

      • Janice – I said only that he may be a registered sex offender, and was repeating what I found on news sites. One need not be convicted (and I did not intimate he had been) to be a registered sex offender. I’m only the messenger – I have no role in what transpired and who did what and am only sharing what I’ve found. Make your own decisions, but do go ostrich on us. You’re a smart person who can think for herself.

      • dp,

        What if I knew your real name, and kept posting ‘(dp) may be a registered sex offender’ here? Would you think that’s A-OK?

        I agree with Charles the Moderator that his name on the list isn’t helpful (even though Charles didn’t name him). But why is that?

        It’s because the warmists have nothing but their ad hominem attacks. Science simply doesn’t support their climate false alarm, so they go all ad-hom on anyone they can. But do you have to join their monkey pile too? If so, why?

        This guy doesn’t act like he’s guilty. I wouldn’t know either way, but after following stories like the McMartin preschool accusations (in which 124 witnesses were called, many of them children of about the same age who told horrifying stories), I tend to be more skeptical than I once was.

        I used to believe that cops and judges are honest, and that people would never lie under oath, and that scientists can’t be bought. But now it’s hard to not be cynical.

        You’ve been piling on this guy just like the alarmist contingent. I’ve searched using his name, + “convicted”, but if he was convicted of anything they sure make it hard to find. Originally he was arrested and charged with a lot of different counts based on what a grown woman said happened when she was 11, but eventually they dwindled down to just one charge.

        If you know what really did or didn’t happen, post the facts. But so far you’ve just been making insinuations. Leave that to the alarmist crowd. It’s their job. And it’s all they’ve got.

      • dp- from what I have seen and been through, it actually tempts me to take his neutron stuff seriously.

        “Rape and sodomy charges against Manuel Sr. were dropped, ……. is now only charged with one count of felony attempted sodomy dating back to 1989”

        Seems like a poor witness and there are some seriously nasty people out there who can manipulate.

      • See my first post. I never mentioned any charges Oliver K Manuel from UMR is facing. Only that he is a registered sex offender. I’m still only a messenger. But I’m a messenger with photos people should be seeing. Y’all need to stop misreading what I’ve posted.

        [snip. Be a messenger elsewhere. -mod]

      • dp. If the charges aren’t proven then I don’t care what list he’s on. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the principle of law. In many areas a person is put on that type of list as soon as the accusation is made, “for the protection of the general public” of course.

        Unfortunately they aren’t dropped from the Register after being found innocent. You will often find a similar thing in domestic violence registers. Even when accusations are withdrawn or found wrong, the accused stays on the list permanently.

      • John B – thank you for providing the response I suggested above that everyone take. You are making up your own mind. This topic came up only because several people were unaware of why some names on the list of 300 were thought not to belong on the list. I can’t say this information is a factor for those who feel this way, bu – not everyone is going to agree with you, of course. Oddly Janice Moore, bless her heart, wants censorship of unpleasant information, facts found in the public domain even as others claim they see no problem with any of the 300 names. People don’t know what they don’t know and many apparently don’t want to know, and that is surprising.

        It is a fact of life that if a person is carrying around the kind of baggage OKM is apparently carrying it is going to create decision points for the people around him. You can’t make those decisions or even be aware of the need if you are uninformed. Amazingly, providing that missing information causes people to respond in odd ways – even whey they’ve asked for it. People love to shoot the messenger, especially if they think it makes them look good.

        I have tried only to provide background information from what I take to be reliable sources. My response to the information was to suggest that information can create awkward relationships. It is, in fact, the kind of information some people feel is relevant when evaluating a person’s judgement. I haven’t done that here and I don’t speak for anyone else.

      • dp:

        It takes a special kind of coward to hurl public accusations at another person while hiding anonymously in the shadows. Nameless trolls like you are the main reason I stopped participating in several blogs a few years ago. Your signature on anything is valueless because it is fake, not because you are a coward. See the difference?

        Bob Zybach

      • I am not one to condone any criminal behaviour, and if Gleick is anything to go by, then admitting to fraud does not (seem to) have any effect on their science as Gleick actually was promoted after his acknowledgment of the crimes he comitted.

        I truly believe that both should be removed from any positions they have in academia or any other situation that brings them into contact with those that are of a vulnerable status, children and students are all open to abuse.

        Some hold Gleick in great esteem and he has set a precedent by not being punished for his self-acknowledged crimes. Do his students think that fraud is ok when it is done in the name of (insert religion here) … because I am sure that the allegation made in the blog would result in the person being removed from society?

      • db – I didn’t say he was convicted. Read what I said. I got that from the Missouri State Patrol. So can anyone here. That is what makes it a fact, not that I brought it up. If you have a problem with people giving him a bad name take it up with the MSP. I have no idea and neither does anyone else here if this is one of the people Charles was referring to, or if this is a factor even if he is the subject of Charles’ scorn.

        People questioned the veracity of CtM’s claim about some names that should have been left off that list saying they were unaware of any issues with any of the names. Now they know. Had they actually looked it would have been obvious. I looked because I knew Oliver was banned but couldn’t recall why (iron sun nonsense), and then shared without prejudice what I learned. I made no claims about the charges against him. What I did find is not alleged – it is part of Missouri’s history as recorded by their State Patrol. If you do a not very deep dive on the 300 names on the list you are going to find stuff that will fall into Charles the Moderator’s idea of undesirable inclusions – and different people will have different reasons for agreeing or disagreeing. Nothing I’ve said or done has changed the reality. The facts are what they are and no messenger can change that. This is why we are encouraged to not shoot the messenger. And BTW, Charles was right.

      • No Dreary Person, Charles is NOT right. (I already addressed why he is not right in a response to you above)

        Charles the Moderator (titles mean nothing to anyone with a brain of their own) said-

        “Skeptics make the same political mistakes over and over again.”

        Now, let’s see. If I am I true “skeptic”, then I am immediately suspicious of anything that CTM says, just like I am anything or anyone else. That CTM attempts to portray himself as some kind of authority on the “mistakes” that skeptics make politically, over and over again, adds another layer to my skepticism about CTM and his motives. (People who make declarative statements-who say things as if they are known or well established facts, when whatever they have said is obviously NOT a fact, but perhaps only his opinion-give away linguistic clues-voluntarily-that their thought processes are not rational, or logical. They can’t help it.)

        “Without going into specifics, it would have been better to have 200 rock solid names, or 250 good ones, or even 290 credible ones, than a list of 300 plus with known crackpots included. Opponents will seize upon the crackpots, and use this to discredit the whole list.”

        Let’s assume that CTM is a true climate skeptic, who truly uses logic and reason and only wants science to be as accurate and effective as possible. And let’s assume that a whopping 50% of the people on the list can be proven to be 100% wackadoodle, bug nuts insane as far as their personal lives or philosophies or whatever are concerned. So what? What any “opponents” will reveal about themselves is FAR MORE damaging than any damage they could attempt to do to anyone ON the list itself! There is no sane, logical, or innocent reason for even ONE good, honest, well trained scientist, to WANT this letter to FAIL! So anyone, especially a SCIENTIST, who attacks or opposes this letter will automatically reveal to all that he/she has motives OTHER THAN the best scientific research we are capable of!

        Does CTM not see that? Or does CTM not want to see that? Is CTM just a pessimist whose personal opinions cloud his judgement on this one? Or is CTM actually not a skeptic at all, but in fact an “opponent” himself? (along with his little dog totto/dp) Are they both just fatalistic “realists”, or did they post here in an attempt to demoralize or depress people they view as opponents? Or are they both just suffering from some sort of cognitive bias that affects their ability to reason and use logic?

        It remains to be seen. But dp, your repeated attempts to divert the conversation to a topic that is completely irrelevant to the force of the letter and it’s demands, are filled with linguistic clues, and wreak of subversion rather than support. Just sayin :) But keep talking…more evidence is always better than less.

      • boy, dp, you sure got a ton of flak from people with weak google-fu.
        it’s easy to find out all the gory details – even if you missed some.
        and others have not been around this business long enough to have any wisdom about it.
        charles certainly has – and notice how he didn’t shatter anybody’s bliss.
        those who know, understand.

      • Bob Zybach wrote:

        It takes a special kind of coward to hurl public accusations at another person while hiding anonymously in the shadows.

        You mean like the Climategate e-mail leaker?
        No true Scotsman would do that . . .
        Let’s poison the well then.

        Also, I wonder if Michael Jackson is reading this.

      • Raven quoted Bob Zybach:
        “It takes a special kind of coward to hurl public accusations at another person while hiding anonymously in the shadows.”
        And responded- “You mean like the Climategate e-mail leaker? No true Scotsman would do that . . .
        Let’s poison the well then. Also, I wonder if Michael Jackson is reading this.”

        Wow. Not only listing logical fallacies as if they justify your illogical response to Bob, but the irony is RICHER because you are also a person hiding behind the the anonymous handle “Raven”, which makes you no different than dp or the climate email leaker. At least Bob Zybach used his real name.

      • Aphan – the moderators have snipped the links I provided and that’s fine. They have a job to do. That does not mean the information isn’t out there, but I’m not going to be allowed to provide the missing details. You’re on your own. If you’re really interested you will find those same links. This has been an unintended diversion from the original article anyway, and that is that a substantial number of accredited scientists have an important point to make and they need to be taken seriously. Let us all focus on that because it is important.

      • Gnomish – I left out a lot that did not have second sources. Not my first rodeo. But yes, I have learned that people don’t want to know as much as can be known. It is discouraging and I won’t bother in the future. That is how society decays – root cause: lack of critical thinking and a desperate need for tort reform.

      • Aphan – you may be the craziest person in this thread. You appear to be incapable of following the other side of any conversation you have engaged in and follow only the flow of your own posts. Perhaps I’m the craziest for even responding to you knowing what I know. Accepting that possibility I yield to your self-absorption. The thread is yours to own.

      • I just saw this post:

        dp
        January 28, 2016 at 10:41 pm

        See my first post. I never mentioned any charges Oliver K Manuel from UMR is facing. Only that he is a registered sex offender. I’m still only a messenger. But I’m a messenger with photos people should be seeing. Y’all need to stop misreading what I’ve posted.

        [snip. Be a messenger elsewhere. -mod]

        That and my responses are being deleted. Best we listen to the mod and drop this because a conversation is no longer possible.

        Mods – I love you guys but it would be best to remove my entire contribution than to leave me hanging with my responses deleted. Your call. Thanks for what you do and for dealing with the crap you have to put up with.

      • “That and my responses are being deleted. Best we listen to the mod and drop this because a conversation is no longer possible.”

        dp, when the mods here delete a post, it actually shows up on the screen, in the thread as “this post was deleted”. There is not ONE instance in this thread where anyone’s post has been deleted. Some of your posts have been edited, or perhaps your posts are not clearing moderation, but the only reason that conversation is no longer possible is because you refuse to converse in a manner that is allowed here.

        “Mods – I love you guys but it would be best to remove my entire contribution than to leave me hanging with my responses deleted. Your call. Thanks for what you do and for dealing with the crap you have to put up with.”

        Why? Are you saying that everything that did make it through moderation here does not represent your position accurately?

      • Bob Zybach – your logic is your own worse enema.

        It takes a special kind of coward to hurl public accusations at another person while hiding anonymously in the shadows. Nameless trolls like you are the main reason I stopped participating in several blogs a few years ago. Your signature on anything is valueless because it is fake, not because you are a coward. See the difference?

        I made no accusations at “another person” – I linked public links to state-provided information. I am not a nameless troll. I am dp. Anthony has my email address just as he has yours. I have no way to know of “Bog Zybach” is your real name. “Nobody knows if you are a dog on the internet”. It changes nothing if I used my birth name in my post – the source information I provided and which has since been moderated remains source information. I am not personally important to the story – it is the story that is or is not important. The messenger is irrelevant. That would be me. I’m just a guy, 70 years age living in semi-retirement in the PNW and doing what I can to protect my customers from radical fallout from my being outspoken regarding the dismal state of climate science. It is instant death to ISPs to be identified on the internet with a contrary opinion. I trust Anthony completely to do the honorable thing and support my need to remain anonymous. If you wish to know who I am and are willing to honor the privacy needs of my customers you may ask Anthony to pass on my credentials. I am identified in the whois information for my email address. My wish is that it not be generally known because it results in massive denial of service attacks on my servers and that impacts my customers. Nobody deserves that for being honest.

        I am surprised you have a PHD and don’t already know not to shoot the messenger. Certainly things have changed since I was at university.

      • Apham – I have made several posts that include the links people have asked for and all but one has been removed without a trace. Hopefully the mods will corroborate this. They don’t provide reasons and are not obligated to do so, but I do know that liable and fear of liable has a major role in online content. Better safe than sorry which I agree with, and they are in the best position to make that choice on behalf of WUWT. I did not expect this conversation to go on this long given the ease with which everything I’ve offered can be found with simple Google searches.

      • Wow. Not only listing logical fallacies as if they justify your illogical response to Bob,

        Exactly.
        So, no counter to these *cough* illogical fallacies then I take it? I thought you might have pointed them out in lieu of the faux outrage.

        . . but the irony is RICHER because you are also a person hiding behind the the anonymous handle “Raven”, which makes you no different than dp or the climate email leaker.

        Exactly.
        And it also makes me no different even to . . well . . yourself.
        The logic is, of course, that the argument is either sound or it isn’t.
        Who knew.

        At least Bob Zybach used his real name.

        Did he? Well, if you say so.
        In any case it’s a red herring because it doesn’t impact the quality of Bob’s argument one way or another.
        Perhaps you might be less persuaded if Bob’s argument were to be presented by Michael Mann?

        Michael Mann might have a recipe for the best scalloped potatoes you or I ever tasted.
        Bob Zybach might have the exact same recipe.

        *cue:- jokes about climate related cooking*

    • After reading your comment, charles, I went through the list name-by-name but didn’t see any crackpots. Some people are not scientists, but they are respectably professional and certainly deserve to have a considered opinion about adhering to data quality. So, I don’t get it.

    • The official requirement is 97% by climatology standards. What is unclear is if that is 97% crackpot 3% credible or 3% crackpot and 97% credible.

    • Folks,
      Note that this letter has been picked up by a major news media source and is getting exposure well beyond WUWT via DRUDGE which has a numerous audience.
      http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

      One of the side benefits of the letter is to expand exposure of defiance by NOAA to comply with legitimate congressional oversight requests for important information that could significantly affect legislation, which is important to the economy. Many more individuals are now aware of NOAA potentially hiding information/data which by the way has been the trademark of the Administration which claims to be the most transparent of any administration.
      Of course it will be attacked by the left even if the list were “perfect” since that is what one does when they are deceiving the public as they cannot debate on the data and facts..

  4. In my opinion, both NOAA (Karl and Peterson) and NASA (Gavin Schmidt) regularly flaunt this law. They need to be taken to task for it.

    AMEN!
    Keep it within the limits of what has actually been observed. Don’t change past observations and present observations to fit a desired future.

  5. Charles (the mod) makes a good point. Not good strategy.

    NEVERTHELESS, all I could think of as I just read that entire list was, “WOW.”

    As to the anomalies in the list … the answer to anyone saying, “But, you included 10 bits of dross!!”:

    So what?

    97% (heh) solid gold.

    • But the warmers will only focus on the 10 bits of dross as the poster boys for the entire list. They also know that it will be picked up by the mainstream news and believed by the sound bite addicted public at large.

      • Even a list with zero bits of dross wouldn’t stop them from claiming it was 100% dross. No matter who’s on the list, you can bet they’re all big oil shills tobacco supporters and holocaust deniers as far as the CAGW crowd is concerned. They’ll tear apart any list with any acusation real or imagined.

      • Tom: “…picked up by the mainstream news and believed by the sound bite addicted public at large.”

        The ABC etc? Of course, they’re as scripted as the chick that reported building 7 had collapsed while it stands there in the background. But where are the believers of the warming meme hiding? Almost everyone I know can see that cAGW is crap.

    • Janice,

      But again, ANYONE who wants to take apart a list of people who are demanding quality data…..would be shooting themselves in the foot. It would be like trying to point out that a letter demanding that kittens should not be burned as firewood has Jeffery Dahmer’s name on it, and should thus….be ignored!

      • That’s why I said, “So what?” above (just to clarify). I think it is Charles (the mod) you meant to address. My point was that even if there are a couple of kooks (and I know of none, myself) on the list IT DOESN’T MATTER. That is, we agree! #(:))

        My writing needs help, I can see that.

        Glad you replied to me — I needed that data. Now… if only I could DO something about it, lol.

      • +1 beat me to it. I don’t know if it was intentional but in the end quite clever. This is similar to “when did you stop beating your wife?” Our data vs your data isn’t going to solve this. Given the current circumstances the only hope is to maneuver the bureaucracy into a circular firing squad before burning the rest of everyone’s money.

        Was it Twain? misdiagnosing the problem and misapplying the wrong solution

      • Good points. What if every one on this forum personally wrote a signed letter of support for Congressman if they agree with his request for the information/data from NOAA? Since the Congressman is already under attack from the left, don’t you think it would help his efforts to enforce the laws?. BTW be sure to cc the Democrats on the committee who are supporting the defiance of one of the government workers who enjoys a handsome salary paid for by me and thee.
        On the other hand if you do not support the Congressman’s efforts, write a letter to the Democrats who are against a transparent government..

      • I agree totally. I think the public SHOULD be able to follow up this letter with a similar demand of their own. Maybe if I survive my current bout with the flu (right now I just wish I was actually dead) I’ll champion such an idea. If anyone else wants to, and I live, I’ll happily sign that letter. (or make it fast so I can sign it before I die…)

      • BTW one does not need a PHD to qualify to write such a letter in the USA asking for transparent government and following the law. .

  6. The point of the climate change movement is to cut or eliminate fossil fuel emissions. With that in mind, the debate is not really what the temperature is but whether changes in atmospheric CO2 and changes in surface temperature can be related to fossil fuel emissions. This relationship is established by climate science as a correlation between “cumulative” fossil fuel emissions and “cumulative” atmospheric CO2 and also between “cumulative” fossil fuel emissions and “cumulative” atmospheric CO2. These correlations are spurious because correlations between cumulative values can be shown to be spurious as demonstrated in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUvLoE5v0yQ
    The left panel shows the correlation between two sets of random numbers and the right panel shows the correlation between their cumulative values. The video demonstrates that integration of unrelated variables can yield spurious correlations. It can be shown that the finding by climate science that surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 are correlated with “cumulative” fossil fuel emissions are spurious because there is no correlation between the rate of fossil emissions and the rate of warming http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662870 and no correlation between the rate of fossil fuel emissions and the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639

    I think that the bottom line is that the much larger natural flows in the carbon cycle as well as changes in the total mass of the biota are really neither measurable not quantifiable. Without that information it is not possible to assess the effect of the relatively tiny flows of fossil fuel emissions. Even using the IPCC’s very optimistically low estimates of uncertainty in natural flows, it can be shown that the effect of fossil fuel emissions is undetectable http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191

    • Jamal,

      it can be shown that the effect of fossil fuel emissions is undetectable

      Thank you. Exactly right.

      In science almost everything is quantified with measurements. Quantum physics measures small changes to many decimal points.

      But so far, no one has produced any measurements quantifying AGW. That means either:

      1) AGW does not exist, or

      2) AGW is too minuscule to measure. It is down in the noise.

      I think AGW exists, but that most of the effect took place within the first few dozen ppm of CO2. This chart shows that if CO2 doubled, or even tripled from here, any warming due to that rise would still be too small to measure:

      • About your chart: The first use of this that I saw was in David Archibald’s 2007 paper titled “Failure to Warm.” This is his Fig. 9, and apparently uses MODTRAN but doesn’t actually claim that it was derived by the man himself. The notes inside the yellow have been added along the way to now – I’ve seen it used several times.
        I’m just wondering if you know more.

      • John F. Hultquist,

        I don’t claim to know much. That was just an example showing the result of radiative physics. Here’s another.

        I have more charts showing the same thing, but it’s late. They all show exactly the same relationship between initial CO2 concentrations and the subsequent global warming effect.

        Also, I have numerous charts showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature. But despite my constant requests, no one has ever produced a chart showing that changes in temperature are caused by ∆CO2. If you have such a chart I would love to see it. And if anyone else has such a chart, please post it here.

        I’d also love to see a chart showing that almost all the warming effect of CO2 did not occur within the first few dozen ppm. But again, despite my repeated requests no one has ever produced such a chart.

      • dbstealey
        Many thanks for the plots and the information, I had not seen it so well presented before

      • John Hultquist,

        Here’s another one:

        And here is a chart clearly showing that CO2 follows temperature.

        Here’s another, from a different source:

        Here’s a very long term chart showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T (note the “Note” in the chart):


        [click in charts to view them more clearly]

        So, we’ve shown that:

        1. On all time scales from years to hundreds of millennia, changes in CO2 are caused by temperature changes, and

        2. Doubling, or even tripling CO2 from current concentrations will not cause any measurable global warming.

        Unless the climate alarmist crowd can refute those two points, their “man-made global warming” conjecture is falsified.

        (John Tyler, you’re right. I’m looking through my chart folders for confirmation.)

  7. Laws are always opposite their name- Freedom of Information was designed to reduce freedom of information and Quality of Data is designed to reduce data quality.

    • There are notable exceptions, as I recall Hillary’s e mails were released under a FOI request where a Federal judge demanded them from the State Department and told them to stop stonewalling. Similarly I believe that Lois Learner’s e mails that the IRS claimed were scrubbed were also found via a FOI request. While the Administration is not too afraid of congress as long as the MSM is supporting them, apparently a judge can produce results under the threat of jail

  8. The authors of this law must have envisioned the law being enforceable somehow.
    So, is this a police matter?
    How does one come to be charged under this law?

    • Judges have frequently required the Administration to release the information under threat of jail as I recall.

  9. Leaving out the crackpot signatory problem , this is still a weak/naive political tactic. Rep. Smith has said he has whistleblowers from inside NOAA. A lot apparently worse than some abstruse Data Quality Act maybe possibly please investigate the Act violation.
    Folks, this is political, no longer scientific, warfare. Stop playing the science game (even though it is a winner in the end). Play the political game, if you hope to win the UNFCCC policy debates. Whether liked or not, that is the only game presently in town.

    • If Smith has whistle blowers, so much the better. Still, I don’t see how this letter does any harm, nor do I quite understand what exactly it is you propose doing instead.

      • I agree with you. This letter is actually quite brilliant. Because it takes the “science” to the politicians and makes them liable for the crapfest that results if they do not step in and assure that the data is actually QUALITY data.

  10. Marine Observers Handbook, 1969. Page 31.

    “Engine-room intake temperatures. The temperature of the engine-room intake water can be taken as a mesure of sea-water temperature either by thermomeeter or by thermograph. To an extent depedent on the individual ship, the accuracy will be questionable althoughthe method is very convenient and may well be the only one possible (in the absence of the hull thermometer described above) when the bucket method cannot be used because of rough seas, too great a ship speed or a bridge too high above the water line.”

    In my experience, the only acceptable method used by Marine Observing Officers was the bucket and could be useed from the bridge wing from 50 feet above the waterline. The bucket was not a bucket in the sense of a pail (dear Henry), but a specialised container designed specifically for the job of taking sea-water temperatures.

    [comment edited to fix quote formatting issue -mod]

    • Sorry about the typos, old fingers – measure, thermometer, although the, used .
      I’m sure some of you may know what I mean.
      jmac

    • Jmac, and how does the handbook actually equate the intake water temperature to the surface temperature that NOAA and GISS are using it for? Was depth below the surface intake water for the temperature ever recorded? Might make a difference of 10 to 20 feet.

      • How was the temp reading calibrated, how was it corrected for engine room temp, how far from the hull, diameter of the intake pipe, flow rate or filter condition, condition or lack of insulation, type of temp well used, did the well contain a thermo conductive liquid or paste? I have a lot of experience with these type of readings as a chiller tech. Expecting accuracy from these readings is plain ridiculous. And all these factors would produce a warmer temperature.

  11. Charles (the moderator) set a good precedent for not naming names, but, boy, I sure am wondering WHY some names are missing. Two in the “S’s,” for instance.

  12. I don’t know, Mr. J.. I just picked the number “10” (for the # of anomalies) out of the air.

    • Our society is becoming increasingly corrupt because of folks like Obama who punish whistle-blowers and condone the government’s illegal activities. Once this corruption becomes pervasive we will descend to the level of the worst third world dictatorship that you can imagine. I wonder if Obama is that much better than Robert Mugabe.

      • When Obama was elected, I thought that the USA would regret electing their first European Leftie type POTUS.

        Is that so? His type has done incalculable damage over here, socially, politically and economically. Hope yiou get over him soon.

        JP the Limey

  13. There are periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa. There has been 18 years with no warming, at which time atmospheric CO2 has risen 30%. Well, well, well, what could be the reason why the ‘greenhouse’ mechanism appears to have not worked? Is it possible that there is a fundamental error(s) in the basic ‘greenhouse’ gas ‘science’?

    Cult of CAGW nincompooptry. Nincompoop: A person or persons who for some strange reason ignore the scientific implications of the data/analysis. A nincompoop does not understand or ignores logic. A nincompoop is not concerned with lying if the lie is a white lie as it pushes their cause.

    The problem in the case of ‘climate’ change is it appears the solar cycle has been interrupted (most important scientific event in the modern history of mankind). It appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event. We (all countries) are completely unprepared for global cooling and it is unimaginable, inconceivable, that there will be an EMP event when the solar cycle restarts.

    P.S. The longer an untruth has been believed and repeated, and the more people that have taken a strong position to support an untruth makes it very, very, difficult to admit the untruth, is an untruth

    Issue 1) The increasing in convection cooling due to any increase in greenhouse gas will almost completely offset the greenhouse warming. Hot air rises which causes cold air to fall. Due to the increase in convection, a doubling of CO2 will cause a reduction in the lapse rate which maintains the close to the same surface temperature (rise of 0.1C to 0.2C ignoring the reduction of factor of 4 due to issue 2) and causes a slight increase in temperature higher than in the atmosphere. Why, oh why did the greenhouse gas ‘no feedback calculations freeze the lapse rate? They froze the lapse rate, because if they did not there would be no significant temperature increase.

    Issue 2) The absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the earth is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the atmosphere. The ‘no feedback’ 1 dimensional calculation forcing and temperature increase, for CO2 doubling has done ignoring the fact that absorption spectrum of water and CO2 overlap. The reduction in CO2 greenhouse forcing due to the overlap spectral absorption of water and CO2 reduces the forcing due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by roughly a factor of 4 (i.e. From 1.2C to 0.15C). Why oh why did the 1 dimensional calculations ignore the physical fact that of water vapor in the atmosphere?

    P.S. Issue 2 is the reason why the top of the atmosphere radiation spectrum provided by NASA which is the only top of the atmosphere available when one does an internet search, is limited to above the Antarctic continent and above the Sahara desert, both locations of course where there is very, very, limited water vapor.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1

    Collapse of the Anthropogenic Warming Theory of the IPCC

    4. Conclusions
    In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2. Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.

    The modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory began from the one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies with the fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981]. Table 1 shows the obtained climate sensitivities for 2xCO2 in these studies, in which the climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity CS (FAH) is 1.2~1.3K [Hansen et al., 1984].

    In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2. The lapse rate of 6.5K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962) [Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978]. There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1.

    The followings are supporting data (William: In peer reviewed papers, published more than 20 years ago that support the assertion that convection cooling increases when there is an increase in greenhouse gases and support the assertion that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause surface warming of less than 0.3C) for the Kimoto lapse rate theory above.
    (A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) shows the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2.
    Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7W/m2.
    Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55~1.56W/m2 (averaged 1.1W/m2).
    This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in
    the 1DRCM and the 3DGCMs studies.
    (B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24K considering the
    evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.
    (C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17K with the
    direct heating of 1.2W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.

    Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen.

    Weart: This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…

    Hansen: That’s trivial. You just put in…

    Weart: … a lapse rate…

    Hansen: Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers (William: Different answers that invalidate CAGW, the 3-D models have more than 100 parameters to play with so any answer is possible. The 1-D model is simple so it possible to see the fudging/shenanigans). So you try to pick something that has some physical justification (William: You pick what is necessary to create CAGW, the scam fails when the planet abruptly cools due to the abrupt solar change). But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model.

    In addition to ignoring the fact that ‘greenhouse’ gases increase convection which reduces surface warming by a factor of 4, the without ‘feedbacks’ calculation also ignored the fact the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the earth is 70% covered with water there is a great deal of water vapor in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropics.

    Redoing the double atmospheric CO2 level, no feedback calculation with a atmospheric model that takes into account the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the radiation effects of water/CO2 absorption overlap reduces the surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 3.7 watts/meter^2 to 1.1 watts/meter^2 ( also reduces surface for a doubling of CO2 by a factor of four). The 1.1 watts/meter^2 increase in forcing will result in surface warming of ball park 0.1C to 0.2C which is so small, the no feedback case is the same as with feedback case.

    Check out figure 2 in this paper.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region
    In the 18 mm region, the CO2 bands (William: CO2 spectral absorption band) are overlapped by the H2O pure rotational band and the H2O continuum band. The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption is neglected in most studies concerned with the climate effects of increased CO2.

  14. I like the billboard shown for f(garbage) = garbage because f(x) = x is the trend line the warmists really strive to promote. But as for the NOAA logo I would have depicted the seagull as falling downwards while losing some feathers. The NOAA bird is no longer soaring in my opinion.

  15. Silly wabbit. Laws are for Republican Administrations. Dems do what they want (show me the Hillary indictments if you disagree).

    • If they were smart they would wait to indict until 2017 so there would be no possibility of a presidential pardon.

      • The President can Pardon before conviction as I understand it. The President did recently Pardon some Iranians before they were convicted.
        Remember President Nixon was issued a pardon but never indicted or convicted.

  16. Alan Robertson,

    There are not 10 bits of dross on this list.

    They only need one.

    Deniers just sent a letter to Congress

    XXXXXX signed the letter.

    In xxxxx, XXXXXX said:Lorem Ipsum blah blah blah
    Heh, can you believe those idiot deniers???

    I could mock up the Picard face palm image of that in two minutes and already know who I would use if I set out to discredit the letter.

    • Charles, what you are really saying is no skeptic can ever sign such a list because as far as the CAGW crowd is concerned all skeptics are crackpot deniers and they’ll cherry pick quotes to prove it.

      • No. He’s saying that one of the names on this list may not have a good handle on reality. He’s been banned from posting at several sites–this one, too, if I recall correctly.

      • And even if that one (whomever it is) wasn’t on there, the CAGW crowd will just find one or more of the other names in the list to cherry pick quotes from to paint as a denialist crackpot. Or just fall back on the old “in the pay of big oil” canard if they can’t be bothered to look for cherries.

  17. Just examine the troll behavior on this site: ad homs have not only become their fall- back position, but nearly their only position. People can see for themselves what those abhorrent propagandists are all about. A few are fooled, or have proclivities to gravitate to the hate- filled sites, but so what? Let them expose themselves, that we might know them.

    • Good point, Alan. Lol, some of those crazy old trolls are among our BEST witnesses! Those delightfully irrational, nonsense-spouting, defense witnesses do more to win the case for science truth than twenty (or 10, or 16, or 5, or heh, heh, heh) witnesses for the skeptic prosecution oftentimes.

      (narrowing of eyes…)

      Some of them are slimy and evil, though, with their half-truths and misinformation, they must be rebutted to prevent them from misleading others and over and over and over… . Way to go, all you persevering science giants of WUWT — SO grateful for you!

    • I have this argument with others pretty much every 4 years. The Democrat will tell a lie about a Republican. The media runs with the lie. The Republican drops in the polls. Various Republicans declare that we must abandon the candidate because he/she is damaged goods.
      Their solution is to find a Republican that the Democrats won’t tell lies about.

  18. Some have indicated that this letter, as a political gesture, is next to trivial, or words to that effect.

    I disagree.

    It shows Congress and NOAA that there are people from all over who are watching, people with many viewpoints, who CARE that the data handling is done right and well. If no one expects and demands this, it won’t be given priority by NOAA.

    The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    Good to see Dr. Brumm’s name on that list, from Michigan Tech.

  19. The same Gavan Schmidt who admitted that he did not know about the dimensionless Schmidt number and what how it is used – clearly indicating he has no idea about heat and mass transfer.

    • The same Gavin Schmidt who cannot speak to people from Texas about climate change because they don’t speak liberal, agnostic, Jewish, New Yorker!

  20. There is another angle to the sea temperature data set that also goes to a systemic downward bias in the older data.

    The purpose of recording seawater temperature by ship’s crew was to monitor the cooling efficiency of the vessel’s heat exchangers be they condensers for steam power, grid coolers or raw water heat exchangers in diesel fuelled propulsion and auxiliary machinery. This purpose creates a potential bias since heat exchanger efficiency is greatly affected by the temperature differential which in turn determines how much power can be extracted without overstressing the machinery in question. For the usual commercial reasons there was an ever present motive to understate sea water temperature if only on the excuse that (in the days of buckets) they were sampling at the surface for water than was actually taken in several ( typically 5 to 10 ) metres below the surface.

    To cut to the chase, this historical data is simply not fit for the purpose of estimating a global surface temperature let along putting a microscope on a derivative of said value. There could easily be a 1 or 2 degree downward bias in the bulk of that data.

    For the record I am a naval architect who has designed cooling systems for commercial vessels (smaller ones operating closer to coastlines than oceangoing ships but the principles are the same) and fully understand the sensitivity of heat exchanger performance vs seawater temperature.

    Similar comments could be made about the fitness of the land surface temperature, largely to do with a creeping bias upwards from UHI effect but Anthony has more than fully addressed that over the years.

    Put together the sea/land thermometer data is junk compared to the satellite and balloon sets.

    • Do I understand correctly that crews continually adjust heat exchangers to seawater temperature? Even in bucket days?

      • Until (and I sure hope he or she does!) M. Seward returns to answer your Q, CG:

        My take on it:

        … temperature differential which in turn determines how much power can be extracted without overstressing the machinery in question…

        IOW: The ship’s crew was pushing the machinery a bit too hard and didn’t want that to be known, thus, they fudged on the cold temp., saying sea temp. was a little warmer, so that the diff. between the sea and the hot equipment temps resulting from their going Full Ahead All the Time would be smaller.

      • The comments of the naval architect above are of course valuable but I have lived in the real world, where filters aren’t changed just because the pressure drop exceeds spec. They will be changed when the cooling effect is compromised by inlet water temperature and/ or reduced flow. Said reduced flow will also be reflected in the transit time for inlet water from hull to measuring point, which will effect the time the water is exposed to engine room temps. As I’ve stated before, this methodology is laughable and totally unworthy of any claims to scientific value, let alone rigor.

    • For the usual commercial reasons there was an ever present motive to understate sea water temperature …

      Can you explain to a landlubber what these reasons might be?

      • 2 thoughts:

        1. The faster they go (ship and or machinery being run at TOP speed for whatever processing they are doing on board), the more money they make (at times).

        2. Also, the faster they go, the sooner they get home.

      • I find these comments re: ‘understate sea water temperature’ to be rather odd.
        The deck officer with his/her bucket or the engineering officer with his/her temperature sensor has no earthly reason to write down any value other than that which is indicated.

        On the deck side they are creating historical data for the ships log and if they are an observing vessel, that data will be transmitted to shore (by me in the past).

        On the engine side, they are creating historical data so that over time, if a drop in performance is found in the main propulsion machinery, it can be looked into, figures read and run and conclusions reached – do we strip the sea water inlet filter or not.

        On a well designed vessel (most of them are) the main propulsion system will be designed to keep the engine cooled to its required running temperature, whilst running at 100% power, in the hottest seawater you can expect (say 45C) with a years worth of growth/fowling in the system/hull.

        Why would you design/operate a commercial vessel any other way?

  21. Why don’t I falsify data to make my boss happier and gain favor with the political elite? Oh that’s right, I have ethics and integrity to worry about in my private sector profession. To keep my PE license and my career intact I have to perform at a very high level of professionalism. No gains from being corrupt in my world.

    • Maybe we need a PE licence for government scientists.
      That’s how the private sector is given an incentive to keep their work honest.
      Loose your licence, can’t work in that field!

      • dbstealey
        Looking for some minimal help in my local (Oregon) battle with the local “warmers”.
        I use a lot of your stuff because it’s brief.
        If interested, how would I make contact with you?
        Could you get my email from mods?
        Best,
        Ron Richey

      • Ron Richey:

        Perhaps, by now, D.B. has responded (via a mod). If not (for he may not check back in here again), try this: Use the word “moderat-or” (with no dash in it — i.e., properly spelled out) in your comment (this will auto-put it into moderation). Ask that D.B. Stealey be given your e mail address because you seek his help with demonstrative evidence exhibits.

        Best wishes and way – to – go, fighting those Envirocultists in OR (a particularly psychotic bunch, as a whole)!

        Janice

    • For every year over 40, add a point to their wisdom quotient. For every year over 70, add 10.

      Lol, Traf, understandably, your own personal experience is biasing your viewpoint. Remember, those old people in your facility are there for a reason… .

      • Yes. And…..”E” or “R” usually means you don’t have to kiss butt anymore to keep your job/income….Free at Last !!

      • Yes, Sweet O. B. — which gives their testimony inherent, increased, veracity.

        And, congratulations!! :)

      • I have no idea what my IQ is, never been tested, and at this late date I’m not sure I want to know.

    • “What is the average age of this fine group? Over 1/4 are listed as Emeritus or retired.”

      IMHO it is a good thing: it is indicative of the voice of experience and the simple fact that they have less to lose in terms of promotions or acceptance of publications.

  22. This is not that different to the case brought against NIWA (our version of NOAA) in New Zealand by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Went to court, the coalition lost miserably and were asked to pay $80,000 in court costs. Instead of fronting up like real men and paying what was owed, they ran and hid in the hills.

    • Having contracted at NIWA in the past I can tell you for sure their practices were very shonky! And I am not at all surprised the court ruled in favour of NIWA. I also contracted at the Ministry of Justice and their practices were equally shonky and largly corrupt (Based on observation). The law is very much an ass in NZ and I think is the only country that allows people to take the bar exam again and again if they fail it.

      • What was shonky was these make believe climate experts thinking they had the right to waste everyones time then fail to meet their obligations when they were found to be woefully short of a case. Now that’s “shonky!!!”

      • Patrick MJD
        So you contracted to both Niwa and the MOJ? Really, what as? A climate scientist or a lawyer? Seriously you expect me to believe that as some sort of part time whatever, you knew that both organisations corrupt. Oh please give me a break. Unless you were actually working with the data you are no more qualified to talk about it than any other man in the street.

      • Simon, you’re the guy who said that the “CO2 follows temperature” evidence is wrong:

        This whole “CO2 lagged behind the warming” has been one of the foundations for believing there is nothing to worry about . This finding is a major blow to the wall that is the skeptic argument. This is not the removal of one or two bricks, but a major structural failure. In fact I can hear the falling of debris as I write.

        But you’re better qualified than the ‘man in the street’?

        In your own mind, maybe.

      • DB
        Up to his old tricks and changing the subject again. What has temp – lagging – CO2 got to do with what I said? Never mentioned it.

      • simon,

        I quoted what you wrote. Are you recanting now?

        And “old tricks”? Is that what you call being outsmarted?

        That was easy peasy with you.

      • Simon, did you or did you not make the following statement-

        “This whole “CO2 lagged behind the warming” has been one of the foundations for believing there is nothing to worry about . This finding is a major blow to the wall that is the skeptic argument. This is not the removal of one or two bricks, but a major structural failure. In fact I can hear the falling of debris as I write.”

        If you DID, then you LIED when you said ” What has temp – lagging – CO2 got to do with what I said? Never mentioned it.”

        And that would make YOU the only person here who appears to be engaging in “old tricks and changing the subject again”.

      • Simon says (hehehe) -“So you contracted to both Niwa and the MOJ? Really, what as? A climate scientist or a lawyer? Seriously you expect me to believe that as some sort of part time whatever, you knew that both organisations corrupt. Oh please give me a break. Unless you were actually working with the data you are no more qualified to talk about it than any other man in the street.”

        So, let me see if I’ve got your reasoning straight here. If he, as someone who supposedly worked there “as some sort of part time whatever” cannot be believed as to whether they are corrupt or not, then YOU, who has never even been a “part time whatever” is even LESS believable than he is. Did I get that right?

      • Aphan
        Show me on this tread where I said what the trickster Dbstealey says I said. Until you can don’t waste my time. If you want to talk about lags and CO2 then start a subthread because I have not mentioned on this page.

      • Simon says- “Aphan, Show me on this tread where I said what the trickster Dbstealey says I said. Until you can don’t waste my time. If you want to talk about lags and CO2 then start a subthread because I have not mentioned on this page.”

        Oh I’m sorry. There is no rule which states that your lack of credibility on another thread on another topic such as the lag between CO2 and rising temperatures, cannot be brought up in another thread about something else where you are exhibiting a lack of credibility as well. It’s called “establishing a pattern”.

        Now, ironically, YOU attempted to do JUST-“establish a pattern” by stating that dbstealy was “up to his old tricks” and “changing the subject” in THIS thread as a means to attempt to destroy his credibility. But, you didn’t consider bringing THAT up a waste of your time, but when it’s against you, it is.

        But keep talking because now we ARE talking about your lack of credibility in THIS thread. :)

      • DB
        Your big on tax payers money not being wasted. You seem pretty silent on issue I raised. Perhaps you are happy to have it wasted when it’s your team wasting it?

      • Simon me boi,

        I commented on your CO2 comment, not on taxes. Stop changing the subject.

        Your response was to say I’m a “trickster”. If quoting your own words is a trick, then you’re not qualified to comment here. You lack the necessary intelligence.

        That’s obvious anyway. You impotently decree that skeptics of your nutty belief are wrong, based on a corrpt case that’s no different from the kangaroo court that “exonerated” Michael Mann. You’re just not very smart.

        Wake up, Simon: skeptics have nothing to prove. You do, if you want people to accept your ‘dangerous AGW’ conjecture. But you have failed rather miserably. You can’t even produce a measurement of what you’re trying to convince everyone must be happening!

        I’d tell you to give it up, Simon, but it’s too much fun demolishing your pathetic arguments. So keep ’em coming, and we’ll keep hitting them out of the ballpark.

      • DB

        “I’d tell you to give it up, Simon, but it’s too much fun demolishing your pathetic arguments. So keep ’em coming, and we’ll keep hitting them out of the ballpark.”

        So you are good then with people wasting tax payers money as long as they are on your side? Just want to be clear.

      • Curious George January 28, 2016 at 7:42 pm
        Has The Honorable Lamar Smith been co-opted in the Administration?

        I get your point, and was certainly aware that the Obama administration wasn’t the addressee while I was cut & pasting. When those points in the letter are brought up to the executive branch and their minions, they are going to wipe their ass with them and the news media will nod in approval.

  23. So is there latitude to bring a class suit action against the EPA by all electrical rate payers in the US for using illegal methodology in their endangerment finding? Proving damages would be easy enough. We should all have standing. We are certainly within any statute of limitations that might apply.

    • DMA, add in the $0.01 / KW-hr fee we had to pay for Yucca Mountain and it will more than cover.
      The total cost of constructing and operating the repository is divided between utility ratepayers and taxpayers, with ratepayers estimated to pay just over 80%, or $77.3 billion. The DoE said that it has determined that the fee currently paid to the government for the Nuclear Waste Fund by nuclear utilities of 0.1¢ per kWh of electricity they generated remains adequate to cover the nuclear utility customers’ share of the total costs.
      http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Yucca_Mountain_cost_estimate_rises_to_96_billion_dollars-0608085.html

      Thanks for nothing Harry.

  24. Although not asked, I sign in absentia. BA, MS, PhD Geology…46 years in the natural resource industry with an interlude of 10 years as a college professor–Geology, Physics, Math. All evidence is that warm is better and the warming since the end of the last ice age gave us–us. The East coast storm last weekend pales in comparison to 1000’s of feet of ice that covered Manhattan a short 20000 years ago. But that is real science so it is boring and doesn’t fit the narrative…move along. At my age I have little patience for fools.

  25. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    The changing of past recorded data is obvious and blatant.
    They are cheating and it is obvious why – their science does not stack up!
    The current chill in the tropics will need a big reduction in number of temperature measuring sites in that area, to keep their charade “alive”.
    In any case, what does it matter? The political attack on our industrialized countries will not cease, because it is already independent from any climate science, valid or not.
    Actual global temperature, regardless of measurement accuracy and dishonest data processing, is substantially independent from CO2 levels.
    Carbon controls will therefore not affect global temperatures in any significant way.
    The UN driven agenda will be maintained no matter how much valid science is ‘thrown into the ring’, unfortunately.

  26. This process of adjustment upward in ocean temperature not only erases the pause; but this will modify drastically that mislead the natural variability component of global average temperature anomaly and oscillations in different oceans. This will be a dangerous scenario.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  27. If 150 of the signatories hold PhDs in “related fields” (as I read in one article), then there must be 5,000 Climate Scientists in the world: 150 deniers/3% deniers/all-climate-scientists = 5,000 climate scientists.

    Really? That many?

    • Good point Mfk. The next time someone bring up the 97% of scientist nonsense they should ask for the list of these famous people. I sure would like to know who they are.

      • It is way past time to redo the Oregon petition, or something similar. I know some folks who have switched sides over the last 5+ years. My guess would be that, with a good effort, the 30,000 could be increased. Vetting, one of the main issues with this thread, would have to be tight. I would have gladly signed this letter and have the qualifications to do so. Although the physics and statistics (modelling) part of the debate are fundamental, and appear to be the focus of the letter, far more “research” reportedly supporting the global warming meme comes from other areas of science. That allows many more trained persons to legitimately enter the debate on the skeptics side. I have asked on several occasions how to sign various forms. No one ever responded. We better widen the screen or we will be shouted down. I live in Canada but consider the US coming election as the final line of defense for this issue. That means we have 10 months to get it all together. I’ll help any way I can.

  28. “In my opinion” – nice! What you really mean is that you know they are doing it and it’s just incredible the FBI aren’t already investigating this blatant law breaking.

    • “it’s just incredible the FBI aren’t already investigating this blatant law breaking.”

      Sadly, it’s entirely predictable. Think Gleick.

  29. Following on from the controversy about NOAA’s global temperature figures for 2009 and 2015, today there was an article on their Australian ABC web site at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/glikson-the-dilemma-of-a-climate-scientist/7123246

    I posted my summary of the controversy and somewhat unusually for their ABC attracted a response from the author. I emailed the author the following links:
    62.45 degrees https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
    57 degrees http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
    1.62 degrees https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201512

    I will be interested in his response.

    • I’ve just read that Drum article. What a crock. They’ve rewritten the temperature record to remove both the 2010 and 1997 El Ninos.

      If I was a climate scientist I would be embarrassed to admit it in public too.

      • They had their chance to “admit it”. Now the public is going to watch them try to STOP it from being revealed by the law. I would think that the public will demand much more than mere “embarrassment” from them.

      • If you were a climate scientist you would also be to explain to all the rest of us just what credentials define a “climate scientist”

    • By way of an update, the author was polite and helpful. Our conversation reached the point where I asked “Does the baseline + the anomaly for 2015 = the absolute temperature for 2015 or not?”

      He did not answer the question.

  30. “”steverichards1984
    January 29, 2016 at 12:45 am
    I find these comments re: ‘understate sea water temperature’ to be rather odd.
    The deck officer with his/her bucket or the engineering officer with his/her temperature sensor has no earthly reason to write down any value other than that which is indicated.””

    I agree. In my distant past I was responsible for many weather obs. We did them as accurately as we could and sent them every six hours in a coded signal to the Met Office. We did not read temperatures, either sea or air, to the nearest 100th of a degree; we read them to the nearest half degree. Sometimes we went on to the monkey Island and fought across a slippery compound deck in a howling, below zero gale with spray hitting us full in the face to get a temp from the Stephenson screen and sometimes we nipped up the ladder in brain bleaching sunshine with glassy ocean as far as the eye could see. We waved the rattle out of the bridge door, we dropped the brass water dipper over the side (then used a bucket because the cadet tied a lubber knot) so we called the engine room for a temp.
    The purpose of all this was revealed about six hours later when a fax arrived from the Met office giving us the synopsis for our area. Observing ships were marked and sometimes we were the only observers within a 500 mile radius in the Southern Ocean.

    Nobody ever told us that some turkey brain with a super computer, flying a desk in central brainfart land was going to take these rounded, localised, figures and pretend that they could be meaningfully re-processed into 100th of a degree elements, in gridded areas and a trend line squeezed, like a string of sausages, out of a computer orifice.

    This personal knowledge alone is sufficient for me to know that this whole CAGW drama is just that…A manufactured drama for political purposes based on data designed for local weather forecasts. And as for tree rings…..don’t get me started!

    • what a fantastic summation of this situation ivor. your post really needs forwarded to karl et al .

  31. List looks like the who’s who of architecture and anaesthesiology. Well done putting it together [trimmed]. Im sure it will be taken seriously.

    [Cut it out. .mod]

  32. Shouldn’t this have gone to the OMB?
    Copy to Lamarr Smith if you like but why play politics with it?

  33. I find that the January 25 2016 letter from 300 individuals to the Chairman of the Houses Committee on Science, Space and Technology has a net overall strategic merit. The merit pertains to taking a significant step toward achieving an objective scientific self-correction on the important climate focused area of GASTA sets.

    The broad diversity of the 300 individuals authoring the letter is typical of both the diversity of the general public rational skepticism and also of the diversity of the rigorous scientific skepticism that is focused on the ’hypothesis of significant and harmful AGW by fossil fuels’.

    Disclaimer Note: OK, 300. I have been over several years persistently against applying military terminology or military analogy to the deeply divided discourse / debate on science focused on climate. I still am completely against such terminology or analogy. Yet, any 300 individuals defending the integrity of science against a huge establishment is rather dramatic. It is a highly / loudly contentious situation that easily can be perceived by CAGW crusaders as having as a metaphor the movie were 300 Spartans defended a Greek pass against 10,000 invading Persians. Bad metaphor for sure for all reasons, and not only because the Spartans didn’t make it, but I think it will occur to some CAGW crusaders who are dramatically poetic souls and who have seen the movie.

    John

    • ” as having as a metaphor the movie were 300 Spartans “
      Well, maybe, but see trafamadore’s comment below. I counted 199 on the list. Maybe there were casualties.

    • ” as having as a metaphor the movie were 300 Spartans “
      Well, maybe, but see trafamadore’s comment below. I counted 199 on the list. Maybe that’s even more heroic.

    • John, forget about the number of people who signed the letter for one moment.

      This isn’t freaking Sparta. And the movie The 300 wasn’t exactly historically accurate either. Let’s not assume that the CAGW crowd thinks that it was. But let’s pretend for a moment that the movie WAS accurate. And that this moment IS right before the battle scene at Thermopylae….

      300 Spartans just wrote a letter to the US Congress and exposed the fact that 10,000 Persians had been attacking and plundering the Scientific Data upon which the world is basing it’s “science” currently, and demanded that reinforcements be brought in to STOP the Persians and SAVE the “scientific data” from their grubby, fear mongering, bloody hands.

      Now, John, tell me exactly how YOU think the general public will VIEW any and all “scientists” who attempt to “discredit” this letter or weaken it’s demands? Can you imagine anything more puzzling, insane, crazy, unreal, or disturbing to the general public than SCIENTISTS actually opposing a demand for SCIENTIFIC DATA to be of the highest most accurate quality?

      The CAGW’s couldn’t possibly have seen this one coming. And the more they object to it, the more suspicious and UN-scientific the public will view them as being. I say let them come! Who will be the first to put their own bloody hand-print on the walls and reveal themselves as “invading Persians”? I personally cannot wait to see how the CAGW, or even AGW crowd responds to this! If they do anything at all, it will do nothing but reveal them for who and what they are NOT-genuine, real, honest, actual scientists who are concerned about the quality and protection of the world’s data.

      • Aphan on January 29, 2016 at 7:17 pm

        – – – – – – –

        Aphan,

        I want to see the actual names of signers (whatever the number of signers) of the final letter because it is important to know that.

        As to the ‘300’ movie metaphor being terrible, I said so in my original comment mentioning the ‘300’ movie.

        As too your high amount of intellectual energy focused on the exposure of the destruction of the integrity of science by biased scientific activists fabricating exaggerated studies of the AGW hypothesis, I concur with a lot with you.

        John

      • I didn’t say the 300 analogy was terrible, I tried to show you, by using that analogy, that this letter is far more powerful than anyone here seems to want admit.

        The names of the signers is only important for validating that they are actually 300 individual, real human scientists. NOTHING about those people outside of their scientific knowledge matters is relevant in even the smallest way to anyone except people who erroneously think that killing someone’s moral credibility kills ALL their other credibility at the same time.

        If they matter to you, so be it. They don’t matter to me.

    • The letter by the ‘300’ individuals posted in the lead post is dated January 25, 2016, yet the signatories list has a date five days earlier; The lead WUWT post says “SIGNATORIES as of 1/20/16: [links to the list of ~200 individuals]“.

      It may be that the final letter had a later updated final list that totaled to 300. But I see no link to it.

      It is interesting that The Daily Caller reporter Andrew Follet reported,

      “Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.”

      [Andrew Follet’s report gave this link to the letter signers list of 200 individuals: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/signatories_hcsst_20jan2016-1.pdf . Which the link in the lead WUWT post above.]

      It would be great to get a list of signers that was attached to the final letter.

      John

  34. Did I miss the draft letter mentioned above? Was it also posted?

    For your consideration we attach a draft letter which directly connects these issues to your committee’s prior request for documents.

  35. Has anyone counted the number of signatories? I counted about 200, maybe 206. Where are the other 100?

  36. 300 signatures, how could this be there is a consensus, there is a consensus, there is a consensus, have I mentioned there is a consensus

  37. satirical parody on/

    I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter for NOAA to send to the Chairman of the HCSST countering the letter to the HCSST from the 300.

    – STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL-
    – DRAFT ONLY –

    Dear Chairman,

    If congress and the president agree to send us 27 billion US dollars we will all retire gracefully.

    Please send cash is used ten and twenty dollar bills.

    Yours truly,

    {Signed by ‘All your faithful mid-level publically paid managers of the Public Institution that ensured the Pause ended”}

    – DRAFT ONLY –
    – STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL-

    /satirical parody off

    John

  38. Good luck getting any agency of the Federal government to comply with laws when such compliance becomes inconvenient to the agendas of the agency’s policy-makers.

  39. Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    The Data Quality Act
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 Sec. 515 reads:[3]

    (a) In General. – The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30, 2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (b) Content of Guidelines. – The guidelines under subsection (a) shall –

    (1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and
    (2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply –
    (A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);
    (B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and
    (C) report periodically to the Director –
    (i) the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding the accuracy of information disseminated by the agency; and
    (ii) how such complaints were handled by the agency.

  40. In a bureaucracy every mistake or act of incompetency is an opportunity, an opportunity to form a new committee or better yet a series of committees. It’s all good, the more committees the better.

    Bureaucracies are never accountable, they cannot be by design; any problems exposed due to bureaucratic impotence or ineptness only means the bureaucracy needs to be made larger or given more power. See committees above.

    Gavin should have been fired from NASA a long time ago for incompetence, lack of curiosity, cowardice in facing critics, and pathetically obvious political bias. Instead he is still there, a dismal example of how some government agencies are incapable of doing the work they are charged with.

  41. I hadn’t noticed OM’s name on the list, despite all the assumptions above.

    I also did not say only one should not have been there.

    I said only one was needed to take out of context and discredit the list.

    If you are building a fort, it makes no sense to put up a weak wall on one side.

    • No Charles. Just because you say so, doesn’t make it so.

      The whole idea that “only one was needed to take out of context and discredit the list” is irrational and logically flawed on it’s very premise! Show me where it says that in order for a letter to the United States Congress to be taken seriously or heeded, that all of the signatories on it must meet some sort of qualification regarding their moral or mental character! That’s is absurd! Appeals to moral character are a two edged sword Charles. For example, your reasoning skills alone betray the fact that you aren’t even remotely qualified to be making judgements about who may or may not “discredit” a list of signatories! Your argument is so weak you couldn’t make a fort wall out of it even if you leaned it against an actual wall.

      • How old are you? I’m perfectly willing to admit that my insinuation that you act like an 8 year old giggling girl was erroneous. You’re much more like a 12 year old boy telling [trimmed. ]

        [Stay on the subject: You’re more effective that way, you’re easier to read that way, and we save time because we don’t have to cut out your words. .mod]

    • This has been a difficult conversation and I am sorry for providing corroborating information to support your position in the general sense (though not specifically) because it has brought out an unexpected ignorance I did not expect to see here. People can’t acknowledge that which they wish not to see, no matter the strength of it. We’ve gone against the grain, simply put. The problem, of course, is that there is a grain to go against. The victim is skepticism. The lesson learned? Follow the herd.

      • dp said-

        “That is how society decays – root cause: lack of critical thinking and a desperate need for tort reform.”

        “This has been a difficult conversation and I am sorry for providing corroborating information to support your position in the general sense (though not specifically) because it has brought out an unexpected ignorance I did not expect to see here. People can’t acknowledge that which they wish not to see, no matter the strength of it. We’ve gone against the grain, simply put. The problem, of course, is that there is a grain to go against. The victim is skepticism. The lesson learned? Follow the herd.”

        1st- I don’t see a whole lot of empirical evidence that people here are refusing to “acknowledge” something that they “wish not to see”. Person A might be a child molester, but critical thinkers want evidence to support that a court actually examined the evidence and declared him guilty rather than embracing the OPINION or statements made by a total stranger like you,on the internet.
        2nd-Even if person A, or 100 people on that list, have some sort of moral failing or another, what on Earth does that have to do with the letter or it’s demands? NOTHING. Critical thinkers are intelligent enough, and trained enough, to recognize all of the flawed logic and cognitive biases involved in ANY argument otherwise.

        You see, once again, the science of logic and reason (cognitive skills) outline the rules and patterns of speech and thought used by all people everywhere. Familiarity with these rules and patterns enables people like me to recognize the word clues in what people post here and determine whether or not the conclusions they make are based upon solid strong premises, or shaky, weak ones. It gives me the tools necessary to literally “see” whether or not your reasoning is solid and without cognitive bias, or if it’s weak and filled with cognitive biases.

        So you’ll have to forgive me for chuckling over all the evidence you’ve provided so far that you are NOT a critical thinker of any kind, so you couldn’t possibly be able to identify whether or not other people lack a skill you don’t have yourself. Not only is your reasoning flawed/weak but you say things like “it brought out an unexpected ignorance that you did not expect to see here” ? (redundancy isn’t typical of a critical thinker) And “follow the herd”. (critical thinkers avoid applying such labels to entire groups of people because they know better)

        But on one thing we do agree. I’m sure this conversation HAS been very difficult for both you and Charles. Just not for the reasons you pretend it has been.

    • charles the mod[..]ator on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 pm

      – – – – – – –

      charles the mod[..]ator,

      I responded to your comment in a new comment outside this subthread. My comment is at ‘John Whitman January 30, 2016 at 10:04 am’ .

      John

  42. Charles,

    Everyone sees your point, very few agree.

    If your point was entirely valid then Al Gore wouldn’t be invited to … well, any where … ever again.

    Hey, everyone, look at that crackpot hypocrite slave owner that signed the constitution ….

    The letter was apparently circulated openly; it was not signed by private members of a club or reviewed by a select committee with the ability to remove “undesirables”.

    Let it go.

    • I wonder what Charles thinks of Jeffrey Epstein. One of the Clinton’s billionaire friends who refers to himself as “science and education philanthropist” who sponsors “cutting edge science around the world.”According to Epstein, his charitable foundation has sponsored Hawking and other prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates David Gross, Frank Wilczek, Gerard ‘t Hooft, and the late Gerald Edelman”

      Jeffrey Epstein is also a registered sex offender. Does that in some way “discredit” all of the colleges, foundations and scientists who have taken his money in the past, and continue to take it since his release from prison?

      • To some people it will make a difference. It may not be fair but it is a reality. That is the purpose of the sex offender list. It is supposed to burn to be on that list else it would not exist. It does not take a rocket sturgeon to understand this.

      • dp says:

        To some people it will make a difference.

        Name one, please (beside yourself), who turns down money because someone is a ‘registered sex offender’.

        This is pure ad hominem deflection, IMHO. But as I said before, ad-homs are just about all the alarmist crowd has, so that’s what they use.

        I disagree pretty strongly with Dr. Manuel’s iron sun stuff. That’s fair game. But the personal stuff isn’t, because who really knows beside him and the woman accusing him?

      • db-
        the point made by charles and dp is, as you repeatedly acknowledge:
        “But as I said before, ad-homs are just about all the alarmist crowd has, so that’s what they use.”
        Charles knows this – it’s his original premise.
        You agree with the premise.
        He just wondered why provide such easy targets.
        So- can you address that? That was the question.

        (his 4 children who accused him may all be liars but if that becomes the topic, then the distraction power grows to a quagmire – and the original unsolicited gift of an easy target can be repented at leisure.)

      • gnomish,

        So, how would you handle this? The letter was openly circulated. If someone wanted to sign it, they did.

        It’s up to those who put together the language of the letter to control who signs it. So they are the ones ‘providing easy targets’, not me. I agree that the names should be solicited, rather than allowing anyone to sign the letter. Maybe if the authors read these comments they’ll do it that way the next time. They can use this list as their starting point, and ask whoever they want to sign it.

        And I was asking who would turn down free money just because it came from someone on a sex offender list. I notice no one has posted any names…

      • But unlike your oyster bar analogy, no one here asked you what you thought of the personal lives of the people on that list, nor do you have the experience required to be sought out for consultation on them. Charles brought it up and you seized on it for whatever reason. People who are looking for ways to discredit those people will do it , and I’m sure that the people who signed it are well aware of that. They signed it anyway. The fact is that their personal lives are irrelevant to the request. What matters is that each one is a concerned citizen who merely wants to be sure that quality scientific data is always the highest priority, and all people should share that common goal that very likely will benefit all of mankind.

        Again, none of your posts appeared and the disappeared, which is the definition of being deleted. If they never got posted, it means they were moderated and discarded. If they got edited before they were posted, the mods note that they snipped something in the post when it goes live. That is all between you and the moderators and is irrelevant to me.

      • Because Charles seems to want a perfect list of unassailable professionals, and such a list does not exist. People are human. They make mistakes. They also get accused of doing things they did not do, or mocked by others who simply do not agree with them. The other side would attempt to make “easy targets” out of sainted Nobel Prize winners if they choose to.

        Asking anyone here “address” the list because of some issue or another is stupid. The list and letter didnt originate here, we have no idea who started it, or why it was sent to whomever it was sent to. At this point, it simply is what it is. It is up to the representatives to do with it what they choose to. So endless blog debates about how they might view the list and those on it, is a waste of time anyway.

      • I never mentioned what I thought in my post. You continue to provide content that never left my keyboard. I mentioned what I know to be true. I did not seize on what Charles said. My initial post was actually in response to

        Michael Moon
        January 28, 2016 at 4:12 pm

        . He is either unaware of the background of the signers or he is not moved by what can be known about them. He is not the only one who has challenged Charles’ opinion. Subsequent posts from me were in response to comments from other posters.

        Regarding my disappeared posts, that happened exactly as described. Consult the moderators on that point. I had no part in disappearing them. You have no clue how these WordPress sites work. I accept that my posts were outside acceptable content and were disappeared on merit. And now I’m done with it.

      • dp said-
        “I did not seize on what Charles said. ”
        Every one of your responses to me right here are under a post I wrote ABOUT Charles, I could only assume that your comments were directed at that specifically. And you DID commiserate with Charles several times, in fact, I think he brought it up first and then you took off with it.

        “[Michael Moon] He is either unaware of the background of the signers or he is not moved by what can be known about them. He is not the only one who has challenged Charles’ opinion. Subsequent posts from me were in response to comments from other posters.”

        Again, the BACKGROUND of the signers outside of them being scientists or concerned citizens is IRRELEVANT to the import or impact of the letter, except to someone who has ulterior motives about not wanting the letter to have impact. Period.

        About your posts “I had no part in disappearing them.”
        Never said YOU did. Ever. Are you “providing content the never left my keyboard?”

        “You have no clue how these WordPress sites work.”
        I have one.

        “I accept that my posts were outside acceptable content and were disappeared on merit.”
        “1)Disappeared or 2) never actually posted-caught in moderation before going “live” or 3) edited of some content before being posted by moderators? There is a difference, and THAT was my point.

        “And now I’m done with it.”
        Good.

      • dp,

        I agree with what you wrote. If you had writen in general terms instead of naming a specific individual that would be fine. But that is a case where only 2 people know the truth. That’s what bothers me about it. It’s a textbook case of ‘he said, she said’.

    • Would you say that maybe oh… 97% disagree making it a consensus? And is a consensus important? If so is it always important? If not why did you bring it up?

    • dbs – the Missouri State Patrol would disagree with you. They’re the ones who maintain the subject list, and they get their information from the presiding judge. That is pretty cut and dry.

    • dbs – it wasn’t a woman setting the charges – it was his children. You’ve obviously not taken the time to speak from an informed perspective.

  43. This video clip does a great job addressing the integrity of the data. Later in the documentary there is a clip from the Daily Show that is hilarious, and make a complete mockery of the data constructions.

  44. Apologies if this was stated earlier in the thread, but I wonder if this letter is the first exposure to a silent majority of people in academia that are fed up with the besmirching of their profession by activists posing as scientists.

    I noticed a name from Penn State on the list. There has to be hallway whispers in these institutions by scientific purists who see the lavish benefits being bestowed on colleagues they view as inferior.

    Watching someone gain accolades and notoriety for shoddy science had to be grating to someone truly devoted to science.

    • Scientists who sell their soles for money are the most guilty parties. Universities, however, may encourage poor science because all that matters is the 20-50% overhead from government grants that can be millions of dollars. Look at the whitewash done after climate gate and the Mann fiasco at PSU. The government will get what it wants solely by controlling the money. That why this list is full of “retired” old farts.

  45. Reblogged this on Climate Change Sanity and commented:
    This posting is a reblog of Anthony Watts posting on his site “WattsUpWithThat?”
    The issue here is that NOAA, undoubtedly to assist the COP21 Paris meeting participants, manipulated their global temperature record to in an attempt to show that the 18+years of no significant warming (“the pause”) had not really occurred.

    Now 300 scientists have sent a letter to Representative Lamar Smith saying that NOAA did not follow the Data Quality Act. This, along with Smiths subpoenas of email communications from those people in NOAA who manipulated the temperature record, hopefully with out the perpetrators of this scam.
    cbdakota

  46. charles the mod[..]ator on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 pm,

    “I hadn’t noticed [. . .] name on the list, despite all the assumptions above.

    I also did not say [in your first comment on the lead WUWT ‘300’ post @charles the mod[..]ator on
    January 28, 2016 at 4:00 pm] only one should not have been there.

    I said only one was needed to take out of context and discredit the list.

    If you are building a fort, it makes no sense to put up a weak wall on one side.”

    charles the mod[..]ator ,

    A person like any of the persons on the list** are professionally quite capable of explaining and defending themselves in all aspects of their lives and professions, or I think they would not have volunteered to put their names on the list.

    The whole letter scenario seems a grassroots one, considering the range of background and ideas of the signers. But, whether grassroots scenario or other scenario, the actual letter content is irretrievably in the public domain, and I applaud it.

    Charles, to me your point seems to be that the list should have been somehow purified by some kind of righteously-skeptical (my terminology) process/person(s) to screen out undesirable people who should not have been signers. It seems to me you imply it should have been because you think some of the righteously-consensus antagonists of the theme of the letter won’t accept a somehow unpurified list of signers. I may be wrong about your point, however, I suggest we should leave behind any possible righteous bias and attendant stereotyping fallacies; instead focus toward people’s actual applied reasoning on and verified observations of all the subject matter relevant to what was addressed in the letter.

    Disclaimer – I support the strategy of the letter and the content of the letter. Therefore, of course, I support the stated intent those who signed it. I think it could help precipitate a more open, transparent and broader dialog in the part of the public who are interested in the science focused on climate.

    ** list – Assuming the people on the final January 25 2016 list that went with the letter are like the ones on the January 20 2016 list posted in the lead article. I see no list anywhere yet that has the actual signer names of the final letter sent on January 25 2016, if anyone knows where there is one please advise.

    John

    • Bob-FABULOUS quotes. I love the part between “In the time a…..” and “…Mean Planetary Temperature”. How revealing is that?

  47. This is hilarious. Depending on the source it is estimated that the world has 3.5 to 7.5 million scientists/researchers. That 300 represent, assuming the low end, is 0.0085714285714286% of 3.5 million. Less than 1%. Every group has its Wackos. And it says “We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others”. Others? Does that include dish washers and shoe shiners? BULL

    • A dishwasher can figure out that when he takes the plates out of the Hobart, the air cools them. Just as the air cools the ocean and not the other way around as climastrologists think.

      Trenberth should always be served cold soup, then he can blow his CO2 on it until it is piping hot.

    • It was a sarcastic comment by someone here that maybe these 300 people represented the “3%” which are missing in Cooked the Books et al 2013 “Consensus study”. It wasn’t said as if it was a FACT. And 300 signatories does NOT mean that there are ONLY 300 of them in existence.

      Now, let’s assume that you are a person who likes to openly demand EQUALITY for all, and you want people to believe that you are a fair and non bigoted person. But you declare, or insinuate, that some of the people on that list are “wackos”. Fine, your opinion is your own. But, as someone who wishes to appear to demand “equal treatment” of everyone, then you must grant that same “right” (to declare anyone at all a wacko) to everyone else. (or be viewed as a hypocrite who actually reserves some rights for yourself only) So buckle up and freely allow (and invite) people to declare anyone they wish to- a “wacko” for any reason.

      See how logic and reason works? If you want to insinuate that “dish washers and shoe shiners” and truck drivers and every other person who is NOT a “scientist” has absolutely NO RIGHT to demand that the scientific community produces ONLY the best data of the highest quality, or actually adheres to the Scientific Method as it is currently defined….then you’d better not be a scientist/activist/person who needs the support of “dish washers, shoe shiners, truck drivers or any other person in order to push through some scientific agenda for you, because you just rendered ALL of their opinions and “rights” in the matter as irrelevant.

  48. Jersey Boy
    What is hilarious and meaningless is your comment..
    Did you read the list which includes many impressive individuals with significant accomplishments?
    Besides even a dishwasher is smart enough to want honesty transparency in the government and has the right to contact his congressman to demand that all the agencies comply with the law. It does not take a PHD to recognize corruption in the government unless you are one of the mindless Jersey voters who continue to vote in corruption in the NJ Legislature

  49. I would hope that somewhere in all of this data integrity issue there will be a requirement that when a government agency issues a press report that some measured quantity has increased by 0.01 (whatever units) over the last measured high there would be a sentence revealing what is the uncertainty in that number..

    • Dick-EXACTLY! Not just hidden in the research somewhere (or even ommitted all together-which I think should automatically PREVENT such research from being published anywhere for any reason) but actually ANNOUNCED to the PRESS in the same press release.

  50. There are 195 signatures on that document, not 300. Who came up with wrong number?

    As far as climate scientists go the only signatories of any note are Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.

    • The list shown carries the title Signatories (1/20/2016) of HCSST Letter. The letter wasn’t sent to Smith until the 25th. More names could very well have been added to the list between.

      I believe (not certain) that the story was posted FIRST by Daily Caller (see time stamp of their initial story) and then WUWT picked up the story from there. The Daily Caller story says-

      “Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.”

      But the Daily Caller story links to the WUWT pdf list of names. So I don’t know where the Daily Caller got the number 300 from. I sent an email to Andrew Follett at the Daily Caller, but have yet to hear back.

      • Andrew is a trooper…working on posting the full list that ended up on the letter as of the 25th. There were in fact 300 names in the end.

    • Magma,
      It is enlightening to find someone who thinks they are qualified to judge which individuals qualify as a climate scientist and who does not. I assume your read the letter, although you fail to recognize the main thrust of the is compliance with the law which any good citizen should be supportive of the request even those who do not meet your criteria to qualify as a climate scientist.
      Are you supporting the Administration concept that any government employee can resist congressional oversight and not comply with laws such as the FOI Act?

      • I support the ability of heads of agencies and departments to shield their employees from politically-motivated harassment that (among other things) constitutes a blatant waste of taxpayer resources.

      • Ah. But in order to call something politically motivated harassment, you have to PROVE that it really is politically motivated and harassing. You don’t get to just declare that it is, and then ignore the law.

        So, do you or do you not agree, that ANY group of citizens, no matter what their vocations in life are, has the right to demand that THEIR government looks into one of the government’s own agencies and either verifies that the data in question IS accurate, and of high quality or does some house cleaning and enforcement of the law if it finds otherwise? Because I am a taxpayer and I HAPPILY invite the government to use my tax dollars to MAKE SURE that government agencies are doing the jobs they are being paid to do…WITH MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!!!!

        If you hire a babysitter to watch your kids, and your kids tell you that the babysitter did something suspicious or bad or improper while she/he was watching your kids, do you tell the kids to shut up because you want to shield the babysitter (your employee) from the whatever is motivating your kids to “harass” said babysitter? Do you actually BELIEVE that the babysitter has the “right” to behave any way he/she desires without any kind of oversight from you?

        Please.

      • Magma,
        Interesting, then you are against the constitution that provides for Congressional oversight of the Executive branch. This balance of power is provided to stop the corruption, lack of transparency, inaction while diplomats die, excessive, ability of the executive branch to lie and deceive the public, and creation of a dictatorship such as exists in Cuba and Venezuela. ..
        The court system disagrees and has upheld and stopped the excecutive branch on numerous occasions especially during the current Administration which has lost numerous cases in the court system

  51. How about if Lamar Smith and Jim Inhofe open up their own meeting agendas, email and phone records in full (as well as those of their staffers) as well as accounting for every dime of political funding and other favors that have been steered their way? Just to show they’re acting in good faith? And maybe have someone slightly more competent and on the ball than Happer, Curry and Spencer looked at Ted Cruz’s hearing to look over the data that they pretend to find so controversial without actually understanding or caring about it in the least.

    • Magma

      How about if Lamar Smith and Jim Inhofe open up their own meeting agendas, email and phone records in full (as well as those of their staffers) as well as accounting for every dime of political funding and other favors that have been steered their way?

      If $25,000.00 in a one-time fee for actual analysis services to a single conservative think tank will “contaminate” a single man for a lifetime, if a one year grant for research in the mid-90’s from an oil company contaminates a think tank for all time, how many government-paid self-called “climate scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars? How many editors can you you buy for 100 billion dollars in a government “slimate science” budget, if the government wants to spend that 1,300 billion dollars in new tax money that ENRON invented in carbon trading? How many government “scientists” and how many Nobel Peace Prizes can you buy for 31 trillion dollars in carbon trading futures to the banking industry … every year?

    • It’s called the Freedom of Information Act and all government employees/representatives can have ALL of the records that pertain to their public service opened up and looked into at any time by any member of the public. If you want those records, DEMAND them from them through an FOIA request.

      Let’s see…you think that if they “opened them up fully, and freely” that it would be an act of good faith. BUT NOAA and NASA REFUSE to give up their records, and THAT is “shielding their staff” in some way that is ALSO an act of good faith?

      You are talking out of both sides of your mouth Magma. You’re applying one argument to one side, but avoiding applying it to the other side, which makes you not only OBVIOUSLY irrational and illogical, but a hypocrite as well.

    • Could be. I counted the first list several times, and then after talking to Andrew and having him locate and post the “updated” list I counted that one too. Counting things on a screen while hungry=not perfect accuracy. Thanks for double checking John. :)

  52. The updated list contains 302 signatories, most of whom are retired.

    82 of the signatories who expressed concern that “NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act” are non-Americans living or working outside the U.S.

    The petition signatories include 58 of the ~300 who signed an April 2010 petition to the APS Council regarding its position statement on climate change. Perhaps someone broke out the emeritus email list.

    • So what’s your point, Magma? It’s obvious that a retired person is more trustworthy than someone who must obey their employer’s orders. In the case of bureaucrats, the President gives the orders.

      The President is the one who changed NASA’s priority to ‘Muslim outreach’. Do you prefer that to a retired professional who can openly speak his mind?

      The only “politically-motivated harassment” is being done by the President, and it rolls downhill from there. Every bureaucrat is affected, so only the views of retired scientists are credible. But you prefer to accept the views of people whose employment depends on their toeing the line.

      Are you foolish? Or are you promoting the CAGW Narrative? Maybe both.

      • “Demographics don’t favor the ‘skeptics’. Roy Spencer recently made a similar observation.”

        And? The truth isn’t established by “demographics”, and skeptics aren’t cowed by numbers. Your arguments on this one are all just rhetoric.

      • ^More deflection^

        That’s to be expected from a foolish climate alarmist. Giving straight answers would paint you into a corner fast. So you deflect. Thus, you lose the argument.

      • The truth isn’t established by “demographics”, and skeptics aren’t cowed by numbers. Aphan

        Eventually it will be too much to expect a declining number of aging ‘skeptics’ to hold a contrarian position in the face of ever-increasing amounts of scientific evidence.

      • “Eventually it will be too much to expect a declining number of aging ‘skeptics’ to hold a contrarian position in the face of ever-increasing amounts of scientific evidence.”

        What evidence? If you HAVE evidence please, for the love, bring it forward! Because computer modeled inaccuracy and “consensus” don’t qualify as evidence to anyone!

        NOAA won’t even let us examine it’s data to make sure it’s REAL!!! How weird is that? And people like you think that asking to see it is an outrage of some kind.

        It’s your wackadoodle antics that are causing more and more people are going to become skeptics. Here’s some “evidence” of how many people hold what you call a “contrarian” position on global warming/climate change. (Hint…Hong Kong’s population tops out concerns about it at a whopping 20.4%!! )

        https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/29/global-issues/

        Its almost like “studies” like Cook et al 2013 BACKFIRED and causes skepticism to GROW rather than getting people to believe in a made up “consensus”. It would be freaking hilarious if, in the future, history books credit John Cook and Lewandowsky and Michael Mann with the downfall of AGW theory because even the general public could tell there was no scientific method involved in their work at all.

        Makes me smile just thinking about it. But you keep on slapping the Spackle on it and hoping no one notices the cracks. That also makes me smile.

    • “The updated list contains 302 signatories, most of whom are retired.”
      OMG not retired!!! And please provide a citation proving “most” are retired.

      “82 of the signatories who expressed concern that “NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act” are non-Americans living or working outside the U.S.”

      Do they HAVE to be “American”? Are you a nationalist? You think that NOAA’s data is only used by people in the US? What a lame excuse. Any argument about where they are from is biased.

      “The petition signatories include 58 of the ~300 who signed an April 2010 petition to the APS Council regarding its position statement on climate change. Perhaps someone broke out the emeritus email list.”

      It’s illegal to put someone’s name from one document, on another document, so even if they did “break out” some list, those people still had to agree to put their names on THIS letter.

      If you’ve already given your “best” arguments, then you truly have nothing except deflection, insinuation, and flawed logic. You lose.

  53. Those who grossly adulterated and distorted data need to be taken not just “to task,” but behind bars.

Comments are closed.