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)

 

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
347 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Telboy
January 28, 2016 3:51 pm

Flout the law, not flaunt the law. Otherwise, with you 100%.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 28, 2016 7:06 pm

AutoCorrect has become my wurst enema.

Mike Smith
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 28, 2016 8:00 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Mike Smith
January 28, 2016 8:38 pm

That is priceless! 🙂

3x2
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 29, 2016 3:27 am

Mike Smith January 28, 2016 at 8:00 pm
First good laugh of the day – Thanks

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 29, 2016 4:33 am

Mike Smith
Wonderful.
That is one for Quadrant Magazine.
Please give it a title and submit it for publication.
https://quadrant.org.au/contact/
I can’t see how Les Murray could reject it.

bit chilly
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 29, 2016 6:32 am

outstanding effort mike smith ,that made me smile 🙂

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 29, 2016 9:55 am

How did your voice to text change laugh at to flaunt? 🙂

gbees
Reply to  Telboy
January 28, 2016 6:39 pm

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.

Reply to  gbees
January 28, 2016 6:54 pm

I dunno…. aren’t Gavin et al taking that law for a good flouncing?

BCBill
Reply to  gbees
January 28, 2016 8:39 pm

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).

Wrusssr
Reply to  gbees
January 28, 2016 9:28 pm

Flauntilization is ongoing
Floutilizaton is what happened

Christopher Paino
Reply to  gbees
January 29, 2016 7:35 am

“Mistakes that became acceptable?” Who died and left you Bruce Springsteen?

clovis marcus
Reply to  gbees
January 29, 2016 7:45 am

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.

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  gbees
January 29, 2016 8:29 am

I think they are flaunting their flouting.

Reply to  gbees
February 1, 2016 2:46 pm

We r, afterall, in the Flontarcene e-pock The Dumassic Period, where if I write it in cursive, no one under twenty will be able to read it.

Neville
Reply to  gbees
February 9, 2016 6:41 am

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

Aphan
Reply to  Neville
February 9, 2016 10:12 am

I’d say they are flaunting their flouting. 🙂

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Telboy
January 29, 2016 12:37 pm

English: ewe kneed two no — their our know rules.

Brian H
January 28, 2016 3:55 pm

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.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Brian H
January 28, 2016 4:42 pm

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.

deebodk
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 5:27 pm

“no matter which side of the isle they come from”
Freudian slip or intentional? Either way very apt, heh.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 5:33 pm

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).

emsnews
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 6:23 pm

Such touching faith in our rulers.

u.k(us)
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 6:27 pm

Give her time 🙂

DD More
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 7:37 pm

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?

u.k(us)
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 7:57 pm

Not to worry, she is all done.

Mike H
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 8:17 pm

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.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 29, 2016 1:39 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 29, 2016 5:41 am

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

Nigel S
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 29, 2016 1:45 pm

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.

Richard G
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 31, 2016 1:33 am

Yes and the current POTUS comes from the Isle of Mann.

Hivemind
Reply to  Brian H
January 29, 2016 1:20 am

“I fantasize the new R. POTUS will”
You’re a hopeless optimist, but I like you…

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Hivemind
January 29, 2016 3:36 pm

I don’t even know which country I would want to live in after the election — Hopeless Optimism or Complete Distrust? Can somebody supply a map to them?

Reply to  Hivemind
January 29, 2016 11:29 pm

Hopeless Optimists are happier. The Complete Distrust people are more realistic.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Hivemind
January 30, 2016 7:43 pm

“Hopeless Optimists are happier”
Only because Ignorance is Bliss.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Brian H
January 29, 2016 5:43 am

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)

Robert Wykoff
Reply to  Brian H
January 29, 2016 2:18 pm

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

Brian H
January 28, 2016 3:56 pm

will charge new …

Patrick MJD
January 28, 2016 3:57 pm

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?

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 28, 2016 5:11 pm

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.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 28, 2016 7:17 pm

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.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 29, 2016 2:16 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ATheoK
January 30, 2016 7:47 pm

“The clever/unscrupulous thrived, the honest folk got caned.”
Ouch, Thailand?

Reply to  ATheoK
January 31, 2016 3:01 pm

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

Admin
January 28, 2016 4:00 pm

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
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 4:06 pm

…SNIP !!

Marcus
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 4:07 pm

Are you really that stupid or are you just practicing to be a liberal politician ??

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Marcus
January 28, 2016 4:12 pm

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?

Aphan
Reply to  Marcus
January 28, 2016 7:27 pm

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?

seaice1
Reply to  Marcus
January 29, 2016 5:07 am

“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!

MarkW
Reply to  Marcus
January 29, 2016 5:44 am

That they are not sticking to the standard has already been proven.

Reply to  Marcus
January 29, 2016 1:18 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Marcus
January 30, 2016 1:50 am

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.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 4:12 pm

FAIL!
Bunch of heavyweights on this list…

JohnWho
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 4:13 pm

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.

Hivemind
Reply to  JohnWho
January 29, 2016 1:29 am

“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.

MarkW
Reply to  JohnWho
January 29, 2016 5:45 am

To be labeled a crackpot these days, all you have to do is disagree with an authority figure.

JohnWho
Reply to  JohnWho
January 29, 2016 6:11 am

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]

u.k(us)
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 28, 2016 5:56 pm

If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.
Sun Tzu

dp
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 6:26 pm

There appears to be at least one registered sex offender on the list. That can’t be a good association.

u.k(us)
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 6:31 pm

Appears ?….., that sounds like you heard a rumor.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 6:48 pm

Dr. Oliver K Manuel can be checked out on Google. It may just be an incredible coincidence.

u.k(us)
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 7:07 pm

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

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 7:19 pm

And what did you find?

Aphan
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 7:29 pm

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)

u.k(us)
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 7:34 pm

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 ?

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 7:35 pm

Try to be serious.

James Fosser
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 7:35 pm

Does being a sex offenders prevent one from being a good scientist? (or vice versa).

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 7:54 pm
dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 8:13 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 8:16 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 8:50 pm

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

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 9:17 pm

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 9:22 pm

Let’s see if this link work passes moderation.
[Snip. It didn’t. -mod.]

Aphan
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 3:52 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 9:34 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 9:38 pm

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 10:00 pm

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.

Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 10:40 am

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
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 10:01 pm

That should read “… don’t go ostrich…”

Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 10:28 pm

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 28, 2016 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]

JohnB
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 1:19 am

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 8:30 am

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.

Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 12:24 pm

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

Man Bearpig
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 8:59 am

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?

dp
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 2:46 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 4:23 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 6:40 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  gnomish
January 29, 2016 7:28 pm

Charles may well be as afraid of the monsters under the bed as you are. Not everyone is.

Raven
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 9:57 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Raven
January 29, 2016 10:19 pm

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 11:36 pm

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 29, 2016 11:46 pm

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 30, 2016 12:20 am

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 30, 2016 12:53 am

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.

Aphan
Reply to  dp
January 30, 2016 1:35 am

“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?

dp
Reply to  dp
January 30, 2016 1:35 am

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.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 30, 2016 1:48 am

Mods – you owe Aphan an explanation of what you did. Thank you in advance for doing the right thing.

dp
Reply to  dp
January 30, 2016 2:00 am

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.

Raven
Reply to  dp
January 30, 2016 7:43 am

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*

Pat Frank
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 7:08 pm

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.

A Zeeman
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 29, 2016 6:06 am

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.

Catcracking
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 29, 2016 7:35 pm

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..

Aphan
Reply to  Catcracking
January 29, 2016 7:46 pm

Exactly! Thank you for mentioning that.

Gunga Din
January 28, 2016 4:06 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 28, 2016 4:08 pm

..Liberals simply do not believe in reality !!

Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 4:18 pm

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.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 4:46 pm

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.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 4:48 pm

There are not 10 bits of dross on this list.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 28, 2016 5:35 pm

@ Alan Robertson — Good! I had no idea, just pulled a number out of the air to make my point.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 29, 2016 5:51 am

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.

Slacko
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 31, 2016 3:31 am

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 7:33 pm

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!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Aphan
January 28, 2016 7:41 pm

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.

Reply to  Aphan
January 29, 2016 10:40 am

+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

Catcracking
Reply to  Aphan
January 29, 2016 9:09 pm

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..

Aphan
Reply to  Catcracking
January 29, 2016 9:53 pm

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…)

Catcracking
Reply to  Aphan
January 29, 2016 9:12 pm

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. .

January 28, 2016 4:20 pm

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

Reply to  Jamal Munshi
January 28, 2016 6:14 pm

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:comment image

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  dbstealey
January 28, 2016 9:16 pm

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
January 28, 2016 10:33 pm

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.

JohnTyler
Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2016 7:50 am

dbstealey:
Was there not an ice age in which CO2 levels were HIGHER than present day CO2 levels?

Catcracking
Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2016 9:33 pm

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

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Jamal Munshi
January 29, 2016 3:57 pm

dbstealey: Thanks
I guess we are out in left field waiting for the ball to come our way.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 29, 2016 7:36 pm

John Hultquist,
Here’s another one:comment image
And here is a chart clearly showing that CO2 follows temperature.
Here’s another, from a different source:comment image
Here’s a very long term chart showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T (note the “Note” in the chart):comment image
[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.)

Reply to  Jamal Munshi
January 30, 2016 10:30 am

John Tyler,
Maybe these answer your question:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c011572416077970b-pi
And:comment image

cloa5132013
January 28, 2016 4:21 pm

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.

Gamecock
Reply to  cloa5132013
January 28, 2016 5:03 pm

Amen. My doctor information was private until the government came in with privacy policies.

ghl
Reply to  cloa5132013
January 29, 2016 3:05 am

Free Trade.
The drug squad.

RDG
Reply to  cloa5132013
January 29, 2016 8:26 am

The Affordable Care Act .. (Obamacare for Brits ..etc)

Reply to  cloa5132013
January 29, 2016 11:45 am

Laws are always opposite their name

Next you’ll try to tell us that the Paperwork Reduction Act is a misnomer.

Catcracking
Reply to  cloa5132013
January 29, 2016 9:27 pm

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

Greg Cavanagh
January 28, 2016 4:27 pm

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?

Catcracking
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 29, 2016 9:41 pm

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

January 28, 2016 4:38 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
January 28, 2016 5:00 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Michael Palmer
January 29, 2016 5:40 pm

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.

Jmac
January 28, 2016 4:42 pm

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]

8364khz
Reply to  Jmac
January 28, 2016 4:45 pm

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

DD More
Reply to  Jmac
January 28, 2016 7:52 pm

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.

Reply to  DD More
January 29, 2016 1:30 pm

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.

Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 4:43 pm

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.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 4:49 pm

Stokes?
Nevermind.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2016 5:36 pm

LOL, Alan. Oh, yes, of COURSE.

Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 4:45 pm

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

January 28, 2016 4:53 pm

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
Henry Kissinger

commieBob
Reply to  kokoda
January 28, 2016 8:53 pm

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.

Jeremy Poynton
Reply to  commieBob
January 29, 2016 8:48 am

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

William Astley
January 28, 2016 4:54 pm

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.

StephanF
Reply to  William Astley
January 28, 2016 10:36 pm

“There has been 18 years with no warming, at which time atmospheric CO2 has risen 30%.”
30% in 18 years? You mean 30 ppm, right? 30% would be about 100 ppm. However, 30 ppm should still show an effect on global temperatures if CAGW were true…
Stephan

Brian H
Reply to  StephanF
January 29, 2016 5:48 pm

30%, close enough for government work.

StephanF
Reply to  StephanF
January 29, 2016 11:00 pm

Not so, 40 ppm increase in about 20 years is 11%. Just eyeballing the graph from the ‘Atmosphere’ reference page from WUWT:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/figures/co2_tr_global.png
I don’t see how you could get 30% in 18 years.
Stephan

Reply to  StephanF
January 30, 2016 5:02 pm

StephanF,
It’s all in how you read the comment. I think William Astley was pointing out that after a rise in CO2 of some 30%, global warming stopped. Maybe he should have said “after” instead of “at”. But the point is valid: a big rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable global warming.

Reply to  William Astley
January 29, 2016 2:26 pm

Thank you for this excellent explanation and answers to many questions.

noaaprogrammer
January 28, 2016 5:03 pm

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.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 28, 2016 5:27 pm

I liked the garbage f(x) = x analogy also. I should be the new logo for NOAA and NASA.

Janice Moore
Reply to  pyeatte
January 28, 2016 6:29 pm

Aaaand, here is NOAA’s new mascot!
WALL-E — “Ta da!”

(youtube)

rogerknights
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 29, 2016 2:37 am

How about showing NOAA’s iconic bird flying into a wind turbine!?!
(Too harsh for Josh, probably, but I encourage others to do a sketch.)

Janice Moore
Reply to  rogerknights
January 29, 2016 8:29 am

+1

Gamecock
January 28, 2016 5:07 pm

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

Hot Air
Reply to  Gamecock
January 28, 2016 7:46 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  Hot Air
January 29, 2016 5:55 am

If they wait till 2017, Hillary could always pardon herself.

Catcracking
Reply to  Hot Air
January 29, 2016 9:54 pm

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.

Admin
January 28, 2016 5:12 pm

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.

u.k(us)
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 5:25 pm

I’m skeptical.

u.k(us)
Reply to  u.k(us)
January 28, 2016 5:37 pm

Umm, it’s been 10 minutes now 🙂
I guess you’re busy ?

Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 28, 2016 5:40 pm

I already said I’m not naming names.

John Endicott
Reply to  Charles Rotter
January 29, 2016 6:01 am

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.

OK S.
Reply to  John Endicott
January 29, 2016 7:06 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
January 29, 2016 9:04 am

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.

Alan Robertson
January 28, 2016 5:22 pm

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.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 28, 2016 5:51 pm

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!

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 29, 2016 5:57 am

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.

Bob Weber
January 28, 2016 5:27 pm

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.

Reply to  Bob Weber
January 29, 2016 1:56 pm

Why does such a letter have to come only from scientists? Why not circulate a petition here to censure NOAA for it’s actions in contravention of the law? Isn’t a letter from voting citizens of the U.S. worthy of attention?

Brian H
Reply to  john harmsworth
January 29, 2016 6:00 pm

That pool includes enough CPs to elect Obama.

Bob Weber
Reply to  john harmsworth
January 29, 2016 9:06 pm

That is great point John, and all it’ll take is enough people with enough motivation and time. Every citizen has standing, and no one in government should interfere with citizens’ right to petition. As Brian H points out below, there will be opposition from the warmist brigades, but I think any attempt by warmists to corral and mute a citizen petition drive would be one of the nails in the CAGW coffin. The public is catching on 😉

Catcracking
Reply to  john harmsworth
January 29, 2016 10:06 pm

John,
Yes if enough people write a letter, action becomes more likely especially if it gets media attention as the subject letter did via Drudge!
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

H.R.
January 28, 2016 5:33 pm

Even crackpots want good data.

January 28, 2016 5:36 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  cementafriend
January 28, 2016 7:36 pm

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

M Seward
January 28, 2016 5:46 pm

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.

Curious George
Reply to  M Seward
January 28, 2016 6:20 pm

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

Janice Moore
Reply to  Curious George
January 28, 2016 6:38 pm

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.

Reply to  Curious George
January 29, 2016 2:03 pm

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.

Reply to  M Seward
January 28, 2016 6:39 pm

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?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Michael Palmer
January 28, 2016 6:44 pm

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.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
January 29, 2016 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.
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?

jjs
January 28, 2016 5:49 pm

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.

Catcracking
Reply to  jjs
January 30, 2016 2:10 pm

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!

trafamadore
January 28, 2016 6:03 pm

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

Reply to  trafamadore
January 28, 2016 6:04 pm

What does their age matter?

Ron Richey
Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2016 6:18 am

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

Janice Moore
Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2016 8:35 am

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

Reply to  dbstealey
January 29, 2016 2:05 pm

Maybe they remember how hot it was back in the day, making them unreliable?

Janice Moore
Reply to  trafamadore
January 28, 2016 6:16 pm

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… .

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 6:34 pm

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

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 28, 2016 6:40 pm

Yes, Sweet O. B. — which gives their testimony inherent, increased, veracity.
And, congratulations!! 🙂

Reply to  trafamadore
January 28, 2016 6:41 pm

Take your [trimmed], and you have the average age of this group.

u.k(us)
Reply to  Michael Palmer
January 28, 2016 6:52 pm

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

SayWhat
Reply to  trafamadore
January 29, 2016 9:06 am

“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.

Simon
January 28, 2016 6:32 pm

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.

Reply to  Simon
January 28, 2016 6:43 pm

Except that this is a letter, not a lawsuit.

Curious George
Reply to  Simon
January 28, 2016 6:54 pm

A great story. Link, please.

Simon
Reply to  Curious George
January 29, 2016 9:32 am
Reply to  Simon
January 28, 2016 6:56 pm

And NIWA turned out to have altered every data stream, all eleven historical stations.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Simon
January 28, 2016 7:51 pm

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.

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 29, 2016 9:35 am

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!!!”

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 29, 2016 1:48 pm

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.

Reply to  Simon
January 29, 2016 2:14 pm

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.

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 29, 2016 8:17 pm

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.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 29, 2016 8:46 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 29, 2016 9:34 pm

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”.

Aphan
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 29, 2016 9:45 pm

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?

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 29, 2016 10:37 pm

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Simon
January 30, 2016 12:43 am

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. 🙂

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 30, 2016 12:21 am

Simon calls me a “trickster”.
That’s Simon’s admission that he was outsmarted by an average guy like me.
Keep digging your hole, Simon. ☺

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 30, 2016 8:58 am

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?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 31, 2016 7:40 am

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.

Simon
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 31, 2016 9:33 am

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.

January 28, 2016 6:54 pm

Why does one hide raw data of no legal or national consequence, unless……

Steve Case
January 28, 2016 7:18 pm

Here’s how the Obama administration will receive that letter:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/33xycue.jpg

Curious George
Reply to  Steve Case
January 28, 2016 7:42 pm

Has The Honorable Lamar Smith been co-opted in the Administration?

Steve Case
Reply to  Curious George
January 29, 2016 3:08 am

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.

DMA
January 28, 2016 7:30 pm

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.

DD More
Reply to  DMA
January 28, 2016 8:13 pm

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.

rocdoctom
January 28, 2016 7:34 pm

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.

January 28, 2016 8:30 pm

Thanks, Anthony.
I want NOAA to adhere to the ‘Data Quality Act’, too.
Their reputation is lost, lack of data quality is the reason.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Andres Valencia
January 28, 2016 11:40 pm

I’d have thought there are dozens of other reasons – blatant politicing would be an obvious one.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
January 29, 2016 8:45 am

Yes, politics seem to me to be the motive behind the reason.

January 28, 2016 8:38 pm

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.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
January 28, 2016 9:12 pm

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

MfK
January 28, 2016 9:37 pm

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?

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  MfK
January 28, 2016 11:38 pm

Remember their definition of “scientist” is anyone who agrees with them.

James Francisco
Reply to  MfK
January 29, 2016 7:30 pm

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.

Reply to  James Francisco
January 31, 2016 1:35 pm

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.

Scottish Sceptic
January 28, 2016 11:36 pm

“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.

Jeremy Poynton
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
January 29, 2016 8:57 am

“it’s just incredible the FBI aren’t already investigating this blatant law breaking.”
Sadly, it’s entirely predictable. Think Gleick.

Rob
January 29, 2016 12:22 am

That would be nice. You know, for the sake of science and stuff!

Ivor Ward
January 29, 2016 2:07 am

“”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!

bit chilly
Reply to  Ivor Ward
January 29, 2016 6:58 am

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

Hivemind
January 29, 2016 2:17 am

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.

Aphan
Reply to  Hivemind
January 29, 2016 7:21 pm

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.

DonM
Reply to  Hivemind
January 29, 2016 9:23 pm

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”

Michael Hunt
January 29, 2016 5:35 am

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]

Aphan
Reply to  Michael Hunt
January 29, 2016 7:22 pm

Oh my no! Michael Hunt declared….such and whatever! I’m sure no one here takes him seriously.

Resourceguy
January 29, 2016 5:39 am

The Data Quality Act is another dust bin law off in the closet and the players know this.

601nan
January 29, 2016 8:00 am

NOAA administrators see NOAA as an Atlantic City Casino, “The House Always Wins.”
Ha ha

clovis marcus
January 29, 2016 8:05 am

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

January 29, 2016 11:49 am

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

Reply to  John Whitman
January 29, 2016 3:12 pm

” 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.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 29, 2016 5:37 pm
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 31, 2016 1:51 pm

And the fact that you counted tells me all I need to know about you. As Einstein said only one that knows what they are talking about is necessary.

Reply to  John Whitman
January 29, 2016 3:30 pm

” 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.

Reply to  John Whitman
January 29, 2016 6:11 pm

On the list attached to the lead post there are only ~200 names.
John

Reply to  John Whitman
January 29, 2016 9:54 pm

There may be a Data Quality problem.

Aphan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 29, 2016 9:55 pm

Can we assume that you are on the “pro” side of fixing that, and any other, data quality issue Nick? Did you sign the letter?

Reply to  John Whitman
January 30, 2016 2:14 am

“Did you sign the letter?”,/i>
Good heavens! What would
that do to its reputation?
But I guess it would bring it up to 200.

Aphan
Reply to  John Whitman
January 29, 2016 7:17 pm

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.

Reply to  Aphan
January 29, 2016 7:51 pm

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

Aphan
Reply to  John Whitman
January 29, 2016 8:24 pm

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.

Reply to  John Whitman
January 29, 2016 7:19 pm

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

January 29, 2016 12:02 pm

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.

trafamadore
January 29, 2016 12:47 pm

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

DonM
Reply to  trafamadore
January 29, 2016 9:53 pm

mebbe you forgot to use your toes and you lost count.

January 29, 2016 1:00 pm

Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
Follow the data. If results cannot be reproduced, question the original claims. If NOAA will not provide the data, it can not be reproduced. Question the original claim.

January 29, 2016 1:11 pm

Can we get a copy of the letter, with the letterhead posted?

Tony from Arnprior
January 29, 2016 1:13 pm

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

StarkNakedTruth
January 29, 2016 1:36 pm

Data Quality Act? Pish-posh! Wouldn’t have been easier just to say….Quit making sh*t up!

January 29, 2016 1:43 pm

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

tadchem
January 29, 2016 1:54 pm

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.