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
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)
What is the average age of this fine group? Over 1/4 are listed as Emeritus or retired.
What does their age matter?
dbstealey
Looking for some minimal help in my local (Oregon) battle with the local “warmers”.
I use a lot of your stuff because it’s brief.
If interested, how would I make contact with you?
Could you get my email from mods?
Best,
Ron Richey
Ron Richey:
Perhaps, by now, D.B. has responded (via a mod). If not (for he may not check back in here again), try this: Use the word “moderat-or” (with no dash in it — i.e., properly spelled out) in your comment (this will auto-put it into moderation). Ask that D.B. Stealey be given your e mail address because you seek his help with demonstrative evidence exhibits.
Best wishes and way – to – go, fighting those Envirocultists in OR (a particularly psychotic bunch, as a whole)!
Janice
Maybe they remember how hot it was back in the day, making them unreliable?
For every year over 40, add a point to their wisdom quotient. For every year over 70, add 10.
Lol, Traf, understandably, your own personal experience is biasing your viewpoint. Remember, those old people in your facility are there for a reason… .
Yes. And…..”E” or “R” usually means you don’t have to kiss butt anymore to keep your job/income….Free at Last !!
Yes, Sweet O. B. — which gives their testimony inherent, increased, veracity.
And, congratulations!! 🙂
Take your [trimmed], and you have the average age of this group.
I have no idea what my IQ is, never been tested, and at this late date I’m not sure I want to know.
“What is the average age of this fine group? Over 1/4 are listed as Emeritus or retired.”
IMHO it is a good thing: it is indicative of the voice of experience and the simple fact that they have less to lose in terms of promotions or acceptance of publications.
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.
Except that this is a letter, not a lawsuit.
A great story. Link, please.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9600968/Failed-doubters-trust-leaves-taxpayers-at-loss
An appalling waste of taxpayers money….
And NIWA turned out to have altered every data stream, all eleven historical stations.
Having contracted at NIWA in the past I can tell you for sure their practices were very shonky! And I am not at all surprised the court ruled in favour of NIWA. I also contracted at the Ministry of Justice and their practices were equally shonky and largly corrupt (Based on observation). The law is very much an ass in NZ and I think is the only country that allows people to take the bar exam again and again if they fail it.
What was shonky was these make believe climate experts thinking they had the right to waste everyones time then fail to meet their obligations when they were found to be woefully short of a case. Now that’s “shonky!!!”
Patrick MJD
So you contracted to both Niwa and the MOJ? Really, what as? A climate scientist or a lawyer? Seriously you expect me to believe that as some sort of part time whatever, you knew that both organisations corrupt. Oh please give me a break. Unless you were actually working with the data you are no more qualified to talk about it than any other man in the street.
Simon, you’re the guy who said that the “CO2 follows temperature” evidence is wrong:
This whole “CO2 lagged behind the warming” has been one of the foundations for believing there is nothing to worry about . This finding is a major blow to the wall that is the skeptic argument. This is not the removal of one or two bricks, but a major structural failure. In fact I can hear the falling of debris as I write.
But you’re better qualified than the ‘man in the street’?
In your own mind, maybe.
DB
Up to his old tricks and changing the subject again. What has temp – lagging – CO2 got to do with what I said? Never mentioned it.
simon,
I quoted what you wrote. Are you recanting now?
And “old tricks”? Is that what you call being outsmarted?
That was easy peasy with you.
Simon, did you or did you not make the following statement-
“This whole “CO2 lagged behind the warming” has been one of the foundations for believing there is nothing to worry about . This finding is a major blow to the wall that is the skeptic argument. This is not the removal of one or two bricks, but a major structural failure. In fact I can hear the falling of debris as I write.”
If you DID, then you LIED when you said ” What has temp – lagging – CO2 got to do with what I said? Never mentioned it.”
And that would make YOU the only person here who appears to be engaging in “old tricks and changing the subject again”.
Simon says (hehehe) -“So you contracted to both Niwa and the MOJ? Really, what as? A climate scientist or a lawyer? Seriously you expect me to believe that as some sort of part time whatever, you knew that both organisations corrupt. Oh please give me a break. Unless you were actually working with the data you are no more qualified to talk about it than any other man in the street.”
So, let me see if I’ve got your reasoning straight here. If he, as someone who supposedly worked there “as some sort of part time whatever” cannot be believed as to whether they are corrupt or not, then YOU, who has never even been a “part time whatever” is even LESS believable than he is. Did I get that right?
Aphan
Show me on this tread where I said what the trickster Dbstealey says I said. Until you can don’t waste my time. If you want to talk about lags and CO2 then start a subthread because I have not mentioned on this page.
Simon says- “Aphan, Show me on this tread where I said what the trickster Dbstealey says I said. Until you can don’t waste my time. If you want to talk about lags and CO2 then start a subthread because I have not mentioned on this page.”
Oh I’m sorry. There is no rule which states that your lack of credibility on another thread on another topic such as the lag between CO2 and rising temperatures, cannot be brought up in another thread about something else where you are exhibiting a lack of credibility as well. It’s called “establishing a pattern”.
Now, ironically, YOU attempted to do JUST-“establish a pattern” by stating that dbstealy was “up to his old tricks” and “changing the subject” in THIS thread as a means to attempt to destroy his credibility. But, you didn’t consider bringing THAT up a waste of your time, but when it’s against you, it is.
But keep talking because now we ARE talking about your lack of credibility in THIS thread. 🙂
Simon,
You said it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/a-new-paper-in-nature-suggests-co2-leads-temperature-but-has-some-serious-problems/#comment-945507
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. ☺
DB
Your big on tax payers money not being wasted. You seem pretty silent on issue I raised. Perhaps you are happy to have it wasted when it’s your team wasting it?
Simon me boi,
I commented on your CO2 comment, not on taxes. Stop changing the subject.
Your response was to say I’m a “trickster”. If quoting your own words is a trick, then you’re not qualified to comment here. You lack the necessary intelligence.
That’s obvious anyway. You impotently decree that skeptics of your nutty belief are wrong, based on a corrpt case that’s no different from the kangaroo court that “exonerated” Michael Mann. You’re just not very smart.
Wake up, Simon: skeptics have nothing to prove. You do, if you want people to accept your ‘dangerous AGW’ conjecture. But you have failed rather miserably. You can’t even produce a measurement of what you’re trying to convince everyone must be happening!
I’d tell you to give it up, Simon, but it’s too much fun demolishing your pathetic arguments. So keep ’em coming, and we’ll keep hitting them out of the ballpark.
DB
“I’d tell you to give it up, Simon, but it’s too much fun demolishing your pathetic arguments. So keep ’em coming, and we’ll keep hitting them out of the ballpark.”
So you are good then with people wasting tax payers money as long as they are on your side? Just want to be clear.
Why does one hide raw data of no legal or national consequence, unless……
Here’s how the Obama administration will receive that letter:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/33xycue.jpg
Has The Honorable Lamar Smith been co-opted in the Administration?
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.
So is there latitude to bring a class suit action against the EPA by all electrical rate payers in the US for using illegal methodology in their endangerment finding? Proving damages would be easy enough. We should all have standing. We are certainly within any statute of limitations that might apply.
DMA, add in the $0.01 / KW-hr fee we had to pay for Yucca Mountain and it will more than cover.
The total cost of constructing and operating the repository is divided between utility ratepayers and taxpayers, with ratepayers estimated to pay just over 80%, or $77.3 billion. The DoE said that it has determined that the fee currently paid to the government for the Nuclear Waste Fund by nuclear utilities of 0.1¢ per kWh of electricity they generated remains adequate to cover the nuclear utility customers’ share of the total costs.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Yucca_Mountain_cost_estimate_rises_to_96_billion_dollars-0608085.html
Thanks for nothing Harry.
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.
Thanks, Anthony.
I want NOAA to adhere to the ‘Data Quality Act’, too.
Their reputation is lost, lack of data quality is the reason.
I’d have thought there are dozens of other reasons – blatant politicing would be an obvious one.
Yes, politics seem to me to be the motive behind the reason.
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.
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
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?
Remember their definition of “scientist” is anyone who agrees with them.
Good point Mfk. The next time someone bring up the 97% of scientist nonsense they should ask for the list of these famous people. I sure would like to know who they are.
It is way past time to redo the Oregon petition, or something similar. I know some folks who have switched sides over the last 5+ years. My guess would be that, with a good effort, the 30,000 could be increased. Vetting, one of the main issues with this thread, would have to be tight. I would have gladly signed this letter and have the qualifications to do so. Although the physics and statistics (modelling) part of the debate are fundamental, and appear to be the focus of the letter, far more “research” reportedly supporting the global warming meme comes from other areas of science. That allows many more trained persons to legitimately enter the debate on the skeptics side. I have asked on several occasions how to sign various forms. No one ever responded. We better widen the screen or we will be shouted down. I live in Canada but consider the US coming election as the final line of defense for this issue. That means we have 10 months to get it all together. I’ll help any way I can.
“In my opinion” – nice! What you really mean is that you know they are doing it and it’s just incredible the FBI aren’t already investigating this blatant law breaking.
“it’s just incredible the FBI aren’t already investigating this blatant law breaking.”
Sadly, it’s entirely predictable. Think Gleick.
That would be nice. You know, for the sake of science and stuff!
“”steverichards1984
January 29, 2016 at 12:45 am
I find these comments re: ‘understate sea water temperature’ to be rather odd.
The deck officer with his/her bucket or the engineering officer with his/her temperature sensor has no earthly reason to write down any value other than that which is indicated.””
I agree. In my distant past I was responsible for many weather obs. We did them as accurately as we could and sent them every six hours in a coded signal to the Met Office. We did not read temperatures, either sea or air, to the nearest 100th of a degree; we read them to the nearest half degree. Sometimes we went on to the monkey Island and fought across a slippery compound deck in a howling, below zero gale with spray hitting us full in the face to get a temp from the Stephenson screen and sometimes we nipped up the ladder in brain bleaching sunshine with glassy ocean as far as the eye could see. We waved the rattle out of the bridge door, we dropped the brass water dipper over the side (then used a bucket because the cadet tied a lubber knot) so we called the engine room for a temp.
The purpose of all this was revealed about six hours later when a fax arrived from the Met office giving us the synopsis for our area. Observing ships were marked and sometimes we were the only observers within a 500 mile radius in the Southern Ocean.
Nobody ever told us that some turkey brain with a super computer, flying a desk in central brainfart land was going to take these rounded, localised, figures and pretend that they could be meaningfully re-processed into 100th of a degree elements, in gridded areas and a trend line squeezed, like a string of sausages, out of a computer orifice.
This personal knowledge alone is sufficient for me to know that this whole CAGW drama is just that…A manufactured drama for political purposes based on data designed for local weather forecasts. And as for tree rings…..don’t get me started!
what a fantastic summation of this situation ivor. your post really needs forwarded to karl et al .
I’ve just read that Drum article. What a crock. They’ve rewritten the temperature record to remove both the 2010 and 1997 El Ninos.
If I was a climate scientist I would be embarrassed to admit it in public too.
They had their chance to “admit it”. Now the public is going to watch them try to STOP it from being revealed by the law. I would think that the public will demand much more than mere “embarrassment” from them.
If you were a climate scientist you would also be to explain to all the rest of us just what credentials define a “climate scientist”
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]
Oh my no! Michael Hunt declared….such and whatever! I’m sure no one here takes him seriously.
The Data Quality Act is another dust bin law off in the closet and the players know this.
NOAA administrators see NOAA as an Atlantic City Casino, “The House Always Wins.”
Ha ha
Shouldn’t this have gone to the OMB?
Copy to Lamarr Smith if you like but why play politics with it?
I find that the January 25 2016 letter from 300 individuals to the Chairman of the Houses Committee on Science, Space and Technology has a net overall strategic merit. The merit pertains to taking a significant step toward achieving an objective scientific self-correction on the important climate focused area of GASTA sets.
The broad diversity of the 300 individuals authoring the letter is typical of both the diversity of the general public rational skepticism and also of the diversity of the rigorous scientific skepticism that is focused on the ’hypothesis of significant and harmful AGW by fossil fuels’.
Disclaimer Note: OK, 300. I have been over several years persistently against applying military terminology or military analogy to the deeply divided discourse / debate on science focused on climate. I still am completely against such terminology or analogy. Yet, any 300 individuals defending the integrity of science against a huge establishment is rather dramatic. It is a highly / loudly contentious situation that easily can be perceived by CAGW crusaders as having as a metaphor the movie were 300 Spartans defended a Greek pass against 10,000 invading Persians. Bad metaphor for sure for all reasons, and not only because the Spartans didn’t make it, but I think it will occur to some CAGW crusaders who are dramatically poetic souls and who have seen the movie.
John
” as having as a metaphor the movie were 300 Spartans “
Well, maybe, but see trafamadore’s comment below. I counted 199 on the list. Maybe there were casualties.
http://i.imgur.com/iLNC0tC.jpg
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.
” 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.
On the list attached to the lead post there are only ~200 names.
John
There may be a Data Quality problem.
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?
“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.
John, forget about the number of people who signed the letter for one moment.
This isn’t freaking Sparta. And the movie The 300 wasn’t exactly historically accurate either. Let’s not assume that the CAGW crowd thinks that it was. But let’s pretend for a moment that the movie WAS accurate. And that this moment IS right before the battle scene at Thermopylae….
300 Spartans just wrote a letter to the US Congress and exposed the fact that 10,000 Persians had been attacking and plundering the Scientific Data upon which the world is basing it’s “science” currently, and demanded that reinforcements be brought in to STOP the Persians and SAVE the “scientific data” from their grubby, fear mongering, bloody hands.
Now, John, tell me exactly how YOU think the general public will VIEW any and all “scientists” who attempt to “discredit” this letter or weaken it’s demands? Can you imagine anything more puzzling, insane, crazy, unreal, or disturbing to the general public than SCIENTISTS actually opposing a demand for SCIENTIFIC DATA to be of the highest most accurate quality?
The CAGW’s couldn’t possibly have seen this one coming. And the more they object to it, the more suspicious and UN-scientific the public will view them as being. I say let them come! Who will be the first to put their own bloody hand-print on the walls and reveal themselves as “invading Persians”? I personally cannot wait to see how the CAGW, or even AGW crowd responds to this! If they do anything at all, it will do nothing but reveal them for who and what they are NOT-genuine, real, honest, actual scientists who are concerned about the quality and protection of the world’s data.
Aphan on January 29, 2016 at 7:17 pm
– – – – – – –
Aphan,
I want to see the actual names of signers (whatever the number of signers) of the final letter because it is important to know that.
As to the ‘300’ movie metaphor being terrible, I said so in my original comment mentioning the ‘300’ movie.
As too your high amount of intellectual energy focused on the exposure of the destruction of the integrity of science by biased scientific activists fabricating exaggerated studies of the AGW hypothesis, I concur with a lot with you.
John
I didn’t say the 300 analogy was terrible, I tried to show you, by using that analogy, that this letter is far more powerful than anyone here seems to want admit.
The names of the signers is only important for validating that they are actually 300 individual, real human scientists. NOTHING about those people outside of their scientific knowledge matters is relevant in even the smallest way to anyone except people who erroneously think that killing someone’s moral credibility kills ALL their other credibility at the same time.
If they matter to you, so be it. They don’t matter to me.
The letter by the ‘300’ individuals posted in the lead post is dated January 25, 2016, yet the signatories list has a date five days earlier; The lead WUWT post says “SIGNATORIES as of 1/20/16: [links to the list of ~200 individuals]“.
It may be that the final letter had a later updated final list that totaled to 300. But I see no link to it.
It is interesting that The Daily Caller reporter Andrew Follet reported,
It would be great to get a list of signers that was attached to the final letter.
John
Did I miss the draft letter mentioned above? Was it also posted?
Has anyone counted the number of signatories? I counted about 200, maybe 206. Where are the other 100?
mebbe you forgot to use your toes and you lost count.
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.
Can we get a copy of the letter, with the letterhead posted?
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
Data Quality Act? Pish-posh! Wouldn’t have been easier just to say….Quit making sh*t up!