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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
/satirical parody off
John
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.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
The Data Quality Act
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 Sec. 515 reads:[3]
(a) In General. – The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30, 2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act.
(b) Content of Guidelines. – The guidelines under subsection (a) shall –
(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and
(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply –
(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);
(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and
(C) report periodically to the Director –
(i) the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding the accuracy of information disseminated by the agency; and
(ii) how such complaints were handled by the agency.
In a bureaucracy every mistake or act of incompetency is an opportunity, an opportunity to form a new committee or better yet a series of committees. It’s all good, the more committees the better.
Bureaucracies are never accountable, they cannot be by design; any problems exposed due to bureaucratic impotence or ineptness only means the bureaucracy needs to be made larger or given more power. See committees above.
Gavin should have been fired from NASA a long time ago for incompetence, lack of curiosity, cowardice in facing critics, and pathetically obvious political bias. Instead he is still there, a dismal example of how some government agencies are incapable of doing the work they are charged with.
I hadn’t noticed OM’s name on the list, despite all the assumptions above.
I also did not say only one should not have been there.
I said only one was needed to take out of context and discredit the list.
If you are building a fort, it makes no sense to put up a weak wall on one side.
No Charles. Just because you say so, doesn’t make it so.
The whole idea that “only one was needed to take out of context and discredit the list” is irrational and logically flawed on it’s very premise! Show me where it says that in order for a letter to the United States Congress to be taken seriously or heeded, that all of the signatories on it must meet some sort of qualification regarding their moral or mental character! That’s is absurd! Appeals to moral character are a two edged sword Charles. For example, your reasoning skills alone betray the fact that you aren’t even remotely qualified to be making judgements about who may or may not “discredit” a list of signatories! Your argument is so weak you couldn’t make a fort wall out of it even if you leaned it against an actual wall.
says MacGregor the bridge builder…
How old are you? I’m perfectly willing to admit that my insinuation that you act like an 8 year old giggling girl was erroneous. You’re much more like a 12 year old boy telling [trimmed. ]
[Stay on the subject: You’re more effective that way, you’re easier to read that way, and we save time because we don’t have to cut out your words. .mod]
Collateral damage I guess.
The Fire Control was all over the map.
This has been a difficult conversation and I am sorry for providing corroborating information to support your position in the general sense (though not specifically) because it has brought out an unexpected ignorance I did not expect to see here. People can’t acknowledge that which they wish not to see, no matter the strength of it. We’ve gone against the grain, simply put. The problem, of course, is that there is a grain to go against. The victim is skepticism. The lesson learned? Follow the herd.
dp said-
“That is how society decays – root cause: lack of critical thinking and a desperate need for tort reform.”
“This has been a difficult conversation and I am sorry for providing corroborating information to support your position in the general sense (though not specifically) because it has brought out an unexpected ignorance I did not expect to see here. People can’t acknowledge that which they wish not to see, no matter the strength of it. We’ve gone against the grain, simply put. The problem, of course, is that there is a grain to go against. The victim is skepticism. The lesson learned? Follow the herd.”
1st- I don’t see a whole lot of empirical evidence that people here are refusing to “acknowledge” something that they “wish not to see”. Person A might be a child molester, but critical thinkers want evidence to support that a court actually examined the evidence and declared him guilty rather than embracing the OPINION or statements made by a total stranger like you,on the internet.
2nd-Even if person A, or 100 people on that list, have some sort of moral failing or another, what on Earth does that have to do with the letter or it’s demands? NOTHING. Critical thinkers are intelligent enough, and trained enough, to recognize all of the flawed logic and cognitive biases involved in ANY argument otherwise.
You see, once again, the science of logic and reason (cognitive skills) outline the rules and patterns of speech and thought used by all people everywhere. Familiarity with these rules and patterns enables people like me to recognize the word clues in what people post here and determine whether or not the conclusions they make are based upon solid strong premises, or shaky, weak ones. It gives me the tools necessary to literally “see” whether or not your reasoning is solid and without cognitive bias, or if it’s weak and filled with cognitive biases.
So you’ll have to forgive me for chuckling over all the evidence you’ve provided so far that you are NOT a critical thinker of any kind, so you couldn’t possibly be able to identify whether or not other people lack a skill you don’t have yourself. Not only is your reasoning flawed/weak but you say things like “it brought out an unexpected ignorance that you did not expect to see here” ? (redundancy isn’t typical of a critical thinker) And “follow the herd”. (critical thinkers avoid applying such labels to entire groups of people because they know better)
But on one thing we do agree. I’m sure this conversation HAS been very difficult for both you and Charles. Just not for the reasons you pretend it has been.
spontaneous human combustion
in 10… 9…
charles,
That is the way I read your comment. I fail to understand how several misread it so.
charles the mod[..]ator on January 29, 2016 at 3:59 pm
– – – – – – –
charles the mod[..]ator,
I responded to your comment in a new comment outside this subthread. My comment is at ‘John Whitman January 30, 2016 at 10:04 am’ .
John
[Comment deleted. Please don’t label those with a different point of view as “deniers”, per site Policy. – mod]
Reblogged this on ClimateTheTruth.com and commented:
300 scientists sign letter calling NOAA data into question
Charles,
Everyone sees your point, very few agree.
If your point was entirely valid then Al Gore wouldn’t be invited to … well, any where … ever again.
Hey, everyone, look at that crackpot hypocrite slave owner that signed the constitution ….
The letter was apparently circulated openly; it was not signed by private members of a club or reviewed by a select committee with the ability to remove “undesirables”.
Let it go.
I wonder what Charles thinks of Jeffrey Epstein. One of the Clinton’s billionaire friends who refers to himself as “science and education philanthropist” who sponsors “cutting edge science around the world.”According to Epstein, his charitable foundation has sponsored Hawking and other prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates David Gross, Frank Wilczek, Gerard ‘t Hooft, and the late Gerald Edelman”
Jeffrey Epstein is also a registered sex offender. Does that in some way “discredit” all of the colleges, foundations and scientists who have taken his money in the past, and continue to take it since his release from prison?
To some people it will make a difference. It may not be fair but it is a reality. That is the purpose of the sex offender list. It is supposed to burn to be on that list else it would not exist. It does not take a rocket sturgeon to understand this.
dp says:
To some people it will make a difference.
Name one, please (beside yourself), who turns down money because someone is a ‘registered sex offender’.
This is pure ad hominem deflection, IMHO. But as I said before, ad-homs are just about all the alarmist crowd has, so that’s what they use.
I disagree pretty strongly with Dr. Manuel’s iron sun stuff. That’s fair game. But the personal stuff isn’t, because who really knows beside him and the woman accusing him?
[Comment deleted. This is an identity thief/sockpuppet. ~mod]
db-
the point made by charles and dp is, as you repeatedly acknowledge:
“But as I said before, ad-homs are just about all the alarmist crowd has, so that’s what they use.”
Charles knows this – it’s his original premise.
You agree with the premise.
He just wondered why provide such easy targets.
So- can you address that? That was the question.
(his 4 children who accused him may all be liars but if that becomes the topic, then the distraction power grows to a quagmire – and the original unsolicited gift of an easy target can be repented at leisure.)
gnomish,
So, how would you handle this? The letter was openly circulated. If someone wanted to sign it, they did.
It’s up to those who put together the language of the letter to control who signs it. So they are the ones ‘providing easy targets’, not me. I agree that the names should be solicited, rather than allowing anyone to sign the letter. Maybe if the authors read these comments they’ll do it that way the next time. They can use this list as their starting point, and ask whoever they want to sign it.
And I was asking who would turn down free money just because it came from someone on a sex offender list. I notice no one has posted any names…
i would never handle something like that.
i have no part in the activist industry.
But unlike your oyster bar analogy, no one here asked you what you thought of the personal lives of the people on that list, nor do you have the experience required to be sought out for consultation on them. Charles brought it up and you seized on it for whatever reason. People who are looking for ways to discredit those people will do it , and I’m sure that the people who signed it are well aware of that. They signed it anyway. The fact is that their personal lives are irrelevant to the request. What matters is that each one is a concerned citizen who merely wants to be sure that quality scientific data is always the highest priority, and all people should share that common goal that very likely will benefit all of mankind.
Again, none of your posts appeared and the disappeared, which is the definition of being deleted. If they never got posted, it means they were moderated and discarded. If they got edited before they were posted, the mods note that they snipped something in the post when it goes live. That is all between you and the moderators and is irrelevant to me.
Because Charles seems to want a perfect list of unassailable professionals, and such a list does not exist. People are human. They make mistakes. They also get accused of doing things they did not do, or mocked by others who simply do not agree with them. The other side would attempt to make “easy targets” out of sainted Nobel Prize winners if they choose to.
Asking anyone here “address” the list because of some issue or another is stupid. The list and letter didnt originate here, we have no idea who started it, or why it was sent to whomever it was sent to. At this point, it simply is what it is. It is up to the representatives to do with it what they choose to. So endless blog debates about how they might view the list and those on it, is a waste of time anyway.
I never mentioned what I thought in my post. You continue to provide content that never left my keyboard. I mentioned what I know to be true. I did not seize on what Charles said. My initial post was actually in response to
. He is either unaware of the background of the signers or he is not moved by what can be known about them. He is not the only one who has challenged Charles’ opinion. Subsequent posts from me were in response to comments from other posters.
Regarding my disappeared posts, that happened exactly as described. Consult the moderators on that point. I had no part in disappearing them. You have no clue how these WordPress sites work. I accept that my posts were outside acceptable content and were disappeared on merit. And now I’m done with it.
dp said-
“I did not seize on what Charles said. ”
Every one of your responses to me right here are under a post I wrote ABOUT Charles, I could only assume that your comments were directed at that specifically. And you DID commiserate with Charles several times, in fact, I think he brought it up first and then you took off with it.
“[Michael Moon] He is either unaware of the background of the signers or he is not moved by what can be known about them. He is not the only one who has challenged Charles’ opinion. Subsequent posts from me were in response to comments from other posters.”
Again, the BACKGROUND of the signers outside of them being scientists or concerned citizens is IRRELEVANT to the import or impact of the letter, except to someone who has ulterior motives about not wanting the letter to have impact. Period.
About your posts “I had no part in disappearing them.”
Never said YOU did. Ever. Are you “providing content the never left my keyboard?”
“You have no clue how these WordPress sites work.”
I have one.
“I accept that my posts were outside acceptable content and were disappeared on merit.”
“1)Disappeared or 2) never actually posted-caught in moderation before going “live” or 3) edited of some content before being posted by moderators? There is a difference, and THAT was my point.
“And now I’m done with it.”
Good.
dp,
I agree with what you wrote. If you had writen in general terms instead of naming a specific individual that would be fine. But that is a case where only 2 people know the truth. That’s what bothers me about it. It’s a textbook case of ‘he said, she said’.
Would you say that maybe oh… 97% disagree making it a consensus? And is a consensus important? If so is it always important? If not why did you bring it up?
dbs – the Missouri State Patrol would disagree with you. They’re the ones who maintain the subject list, and they get their information from the presiding judge. That is pretty cut and dry.
dbs – it wasn’t a woman setting the charges – it was his children. You’ve obviously not taken the time to speak from an informed perspective.
His children were grown when they made the accusations. We call grown up girls, women.
This video clip does a great job addressing the integrity of the data. Later in the documentary there is a clip from the Daily Show that is hilarious, and make a complete mockery of the data constructions.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=24m43s
Apologies if this was stated earlier in the thread, but I wonder if this letter is the first exposure to a silent majority of people in academia that are fed up with the besmirching of their profession by activists posing as scientists.
I noticed a name from Penn State on the list. There has to be hallway whispers in these institutions by scientific purists who see the lavish benefits being bestowed on colleagues they view as inferior.
Watching someone gain accolades and notoriety for shoddy science had to be grating to someone truly devoted to science.
Scientists who sell their soles for money are the most guilty parties. Universities, however, may encourage poor science because all that matters is the 20-50% overhead from government grants that can be millions of dollars. Look at the whitewash done after climate gate and the Mann fiasco at PSU. The government will get what it wants solely by controlling the money. That why this list is full of “retired” old farts.
Scientists are selling their shoes for money? 🙂
Reblogged this on Climate Change Sanity and commented:
This posting is a reblog of Anthony Watts posting on his site “WattsUpWithThat?”
The issue here is that NOAA, undoubtedly to assist the COP21 Paris meeting participants, manipulated their global temperature record to in an attempt to show that the 18+years of no significant warming (“the pause”) had not really occurred.
Now 300 scientists have sent a letter to Representative Lamar Smith saying that NOAA did not follow the Data Quality Act. This, along with Smiths subpoenas of email communications from those people in NOAA who manipulated the temperature record, hopefully with out the perpetrators of this scam.
cbdakota
charles the mod[..]ator ,
A person like any of the persons on the list** are professionally quite capable of explaining and defending themselves in all aspects of their lives and professions, or I think they would not have volunteered to put their names on the list.
The whole letter scenario seems a grassroots one, considering the range of background and ideas of the signers. But, whether grassroots scenario or other scenario, the actual letter content is irretrievably in the public domain, and I applaud it.
Charles, to me your point seems to be that the list should have been somehow purified by some kind of righteously-skeptical (my terminology) process/person(s) to screen out undesirable people who should not have been signers. It seems to me you imply it should have been because you think some of the righteously-consensus antagonists of the theme of the letter won’t accept a somehow unpurified list of signers. I may be wrong about your point, however, I suggest we should leave behind any possible righteous bias and attendant stereotyping fallacies; instead focus toward people’s actual applied reasoning on and verified observations of all the subject matter relevant to what was addressed in the letter.
Disclaimer – I support the strategy of the letter and the content of the letter. Therefore, of course, I support the stated intent those who signed it. I think it could help precipitate a more open, transparent and broader dialog in the part of the public who are interested in the science focused on climate.
** list – Assuming the people on the final January 25 2016 list that went with the letter are like the ones on the January 20 2016 list posted in the lead article. I see no list anywhere yet that has the actual signer names of the final letter sent on January 25 2016, if anyone knows where there is one please advise.
John
I like Willie Soon’s phrase : Garbage in ; Gospel out
http://cosy.com/Science/AGWppt_UtterStagnation.jpg
Bob-FABULOUS quotes. I love the part between “In the time a…..” and “…Mean Planetary Temperature”. How revealing is that?
This is hilarious. Depending on the source it is estimated that the world has 3.5 to 7.5 million scientists/researchers. That 300 represent, assuming the low end, is 0.0085714285714286% of 3.5 million. Less than 1%. Every group has its Wackos. And it says “We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others”. Others? Does that include dish washers and shoe shiners? BULL
A dishwasher can figure out that when he takes the plates out of the Hobart, the air cools them. Just as the air cools the ocean and not the other way around as climastrologists think.
Trenberth should always be served cold soup, then he can blow his CO2 on it until it is piping hot.
It was a sarcastic comment by someone here that maybe these 300 people represented the “3%” which are missing in Cooked the Books et al 2013 “Consensus study”. It wasn’t said as if it was a FACT. And 300 signatories does NOT mean that there are ONLY 300 of them in existence.
Now, let’s assume that you are a person who likes to openly demand EQUALITY for all, and you want people to believe that you are a fair and non bigoted person. But you declare, or insinuate, that some of the people on that list are “wackos”. Fine, your opinion is your own. But, as someone who wishes to appear to demand “equal treatment” of everyone, then you must grant that same “right” (to declare anyone at all a wacko) to everyone else. (or be viewed as a hypocrite who actually reserves some rights for yourself only) So buckle up and freely allow (and invite) people to declare anyone they wish to- a “wacko” for any reason.
See how logic and reason works? If you want to insinuate that “dish washers and shoe shiners” and truck drivers and every other person who is NOT a “scientist” has absolutely NO RIGHT to demand that the scientific community produces ONLY the best data of the highest quality, or actually adheres to the Scientific Method as it is currently defined….then you’d better not be a scientist/activist/person who needs the support of “dish washers, shoe shiners, truck drivers or any other person in order to push through some scientific agenda for you, because you just rendered ALL of their opinions and “rights” in the matter as irrelevant.
Jersey Boy
What is hilarious and meaningless is your comment..
Did you read the list which includes many impressive individuals with significant accomplishments?
Besides even a dishwasher is smart enough to want honesty transparency in the government and has the right to contact his congressman to demand that all the agencies comply with the law. It does not take a PHD to recognize corruption in the government unless you are one of the mindless Jersey voters who continue to vote in corruption in the NJ Legislature
I would hope that somewhere in all of this data integrity issue there will be a requirement that when a government agency issues a press report that some measured quantity has increased by 0.01 (whatever units) over the last measured high there would be a sentence revealing what is the uncertainty in that number..
Dick-EXACTLY! Not just hidden in the research somewhere (or even ommitted all together-which I think should automatically PREVENT such research from being published anywhere for any reason) but actually ANNOUNCED to the PRESS in the same press release.
There are 195 signatures on that document, not 300. Who came up with wrong number?
As far as climate scientists go the only signatories of any note are Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.
The list shown carries the title Signatories (1/20/2016) of HCSST Letter. The letter wasn’t sent to Smith until the 25th. More names could very well have been added to the list between.
I believe (not certain) that the story was posted FIRST by Daily Caller (see time stamp of their initial story) and then WUWT picked up the story from there. The Daily Caller story says-
“Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.”
But the Daily Caller story links to the WUWT pdf list of names. So I don’t know where the Daily Caller got the number 300 from. I sent an email to Andrew Follett at the Daily Caller, but have yet to hear back.
Andrew is a trooper…working on posting the full list that ended up on the letter as of the 25th. There were in fact 300 names in the end.
Magma,
It is enlightening to find someone who thinks they are qualified to judge which individuals qualify as a climate scientist and who does not. I assume your read the letter, although you fail to recognize the main thrust of the is compliance with the law which any good citizen should be supportive of the request even those who do not meet your criteria to qualify as a climate scientist.
Are you supporting the Administration concept that any government employee can resist congressional oversight and not comply with laws such as the FOI Act?
I support the ability of heads of agencies and departments to shield their employees from politically-motivated harassment that (among other things) constitutes a blatant waste of taxpayer resources.
Ah. But in order to call something politically motivated harassment, you have to PROVE that it really is politically motivated and harassing. You don’t get to just declare that it is, and then ignore the law.
So, do you or do you not agree, that ANY group of citizens, no matter what their vocations in life are, has the right to demand that THEIR government looks into one of the government’s own agencies and either verifies that the data in question IS accurate, and of high quality or does some house cleaning and enforcement of the law if it finds otherwise? Because I am a taxpayer and I HAPPILY invite the government to use my tax dollars to MAKE SURE that government agencies are doing the jobs they are being paid to do…WITH MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!!!!
If you hire a babysitter to watch your kids, and your kids tell you that the babysitter did something suspicious or bad or improper while she/he was watching your kids, do you tell the kids to shut up because you want to shield the babysitter (your employee) from the whatever is motivating your kids to “harass” said babysitter? Do you actually BELIEVE that the babysitter has the “right” to behave any way he/she desires without any kind of oversight from you?
Please.
Magma,
Interesting, then you are against the constitution that provides for Congressional oversight of the Executive branch. This balance of power is provided to stop the corruption, lack of transparency, inaction while diplomats die, excessive, ability of the executive branch to lie and deceive the public, and creation of a dictatorship such as exists in Cuba and Venezuela. ..
The court system disagrees and has upheld and stopped the excecutive branch on numerous occasions especially during the current Administration which has lost numerous cases in the court system
How about if Lamar Smith and Jim Inhofe open up their own meeting agendas, email and phone records in full (as well as those of their staffers) as well as accounting for every dime of political funding and other favors that have been steered their way? Just to show they’re acting in good faith? And maybe have someone slightly more competent and on the ball than Happer, Curry and Spencer looked at Ted Cruz’s hearing to look over the data that they pretend to find so controversial without actually understanding or caring about it in the least.
Magma
If $25,000.00 in a one-time fee for actual analysis services to a single conservative think tank will “contaminate” a single man for a lifetime, if a one year grant for research in the mid-90’s from an oil company contaminates a think tank for all time, how many government-paid self-called “climate scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars? How many editors can you you buy for 100 billion dollars in a government “slimate science” budget, if the government wants to spend that 1,300 billion dollars in new tax money that ENRON invented in carbon trading? How many government “scientists” and how many Nobel Peace Prizes can you buy for 31 trillion dollars in carbon trading futures to the banking industry … every year?
It’s called the Freedom of Information Act and all government employees/representatives can have ALL of the records that pertain to their public service opened up and looked into at any time by any member of the public. If you want those records, DEMAND them from them through an FOIA request.
Let’s see…you think that if they “opened them up fully, and freely” that it would be an act of good faith. BUT NOAA and NASA REFUSE to give up their records, and THAT is “shielding their staff” in some way that is ALSO an act of good faith?
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth Magma. You’re applying one argument to one side, but avoiding applying it to the other side, which makes you not only OBVIOUSLY irrational and illogical, but a hypocrite as well.
Updated list of 300 signatories is now posted below the article. Pass it on.
307 by my count. Even better.
For the updated and final ‘300’ list, my count was 310.
John
Could be. I counted the first list several times, and then after talking to Andrew and having him locate and post the “updated” list I counted that one too. Counting things on a screen while hungry=not perfect accuracy. Thanks for double checking John. 🙂
Aphan,
It is somewhere around our counts. : )
John
The updated list contains 302 signatories, most of whom are retired.
82 of the signatories who expressed concern that “NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act” are non-Americans living or working outside the U.S.
The petition signatories include 58 of the ~300 who signed an April 2010 petition to the APS Council regarding its position statement on climate change. Perhaps someone broke out the emeritus email list.
So what’s your point, Magma? It’s obvious that a retired person is more trustworthy than someone who must obey their employer’s orders. In the case of bureaucrats, the President gives the orders.
The President is the one who changed NASA’s priority to ‘Muslim outreach’. Do you prefer that to a retired professional who can openly speak his mind?
The only “politically-motivated harassment” is being done by the President, and it rolls downhill from there. Every bureaucrat is affected, so only the views of retired scientists are credible. But you prefer to accept the views of people whose employment depends on their toeing the line.
Are you foolish? Or are you promoting the CAGW Narrative? Maybe both.
Demographics don’t favor the ‘skeptics’. Roy Spencer recently made a similar observation.
“Demographics don’t favor the ‘skeptics’. Roy Spencer recently made a similar observation.”
And? The truth isn’t established by “demographics”, and skeptics aren’t cowed by numbers. Your arguments on this one are all just rhetoric.
^More deflection^
That’s to be expected from a foolish climate alarmist. Giving straight answers would paint you into a corner fast. So you deflect. Thus, you lose the argument.
The truth isn’t established by “demographics”, and skeptics aren’t cowed by numbers. Aphan
Eventually it will be too much to expect a declining number of aging ‘skeptics’ to hold a contrarian position in the face of ever-increasing amounts of scientific evidence.
“Eventually it will be too much to expect a declining number of aging ‘skeptics’ to hold a contrarian position in the face of ever-increasing amounts of scientific evidence.”
What evidence? If you HAVE evidence please, for the love, bring it forward! Because computer modeled inaccuracy and “consensus” don’t qualify as evidence to anyone!
NOAA won’t even let us examine it’s data to make sure it’s REAL!!! How weird is that? And people like you think that asking to see it is an outrage of some kind.
It’s your wackadoodle antics that are causing more and more people are going to become skeptics. Here’s some “evidence” of how many people hold what you call a “contrarian” position on global warming/climate change. (Hint…Hong Kong’s population tops out concerns about it at a whopping 20.4%!! )
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/29/global-issues/
Its almost like “studies” like Cook et al 2013 BACKFIRED and causes skepticism to GROW rather than getting people to believe in a made up “consensus”. It would be freaking hilarious if, in the future, history books credit John Cook and Lewandowsky and Michael Mann with the downfall of AGW theory because even the general public could tell there was no scientific method involved in their work at all.
Makes me smile just thinking about it. But you keep on slapping the Spackle on it and hoping no one notices the cracks. That also makes me smile.
“The updated list contains 302 signatories, most of whom are retired.”
OMG not retired!!! And please provide a citation proving “most” are retired.
“82 of the signatories who expressed concern that “NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act” are non-Americans living or working outside the U.S.”
Do they HAVE to be “American”? Are you a nationalist? You think that NOAA’s data is only used by people in the US? What a lame excuse. Any argument about where they are from is biased.
“The petition signatories include 58 of the ~300 who signed an April 2010 petition to the APS Council regarding its position statement on climate change. Perhaps someone broke out the emeritus email list.”
It’s illegal to put someone’s name from one document, on another document, so even if they did “break out” some list, those people still had to agree to put their names on THIS letter.
If you’ve already given your “best” arguments, then you truly have nothing except deflection, insinuation, and flawed logic. You lose.
Those who grossly adulterated and distorted data need to be taken not just “to task,” but behind bars.