Back in the summer of 2015, I sent Dr. Tom Peterson of NOAA/NCEI a private email saying that I’d lost my trust in him as an unbiased scientist and that this Karl et al. “pause buster” paper (of which Peterson did most of the work since Karl is just an administrator) would be his “Waterloo”.
It seems that with the publication of a paper (In Nature no less) saying Karl et al. is wrong by some big names in climate science last week (including Mann of all people) and now this, my prediction is coming closer to reality.
Did White House Collude With NOAA Over Temperature Adjustments?
Republicans in the US House of Representatives are expanding their request for documents related to a major climate study by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In a 22 February letter to NOAA, Congressman Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who leads the House science committee, expressed disappoint with the “slow pace and limited scope” of NOAA’s response to his initial request. “The speed with which NOAA has conducted these searches and produced documents creates the perception that the Agency is deliberately attempting to impede and hinder the Committee’s oversight,” he wrote. Smith is now asking that NOAA provide his committee documents from other agency officials and offices, including chief scientist Richard Spinrad. Smith has asked the agency to deliver all documents by 29 February. — Jeff Tolleson, Nature, 26 February 2016
The study of the warming hiatus is cutting-edge climate science not the “settled science” of the greenhouse effect and mankind’s input of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The hiatus is good for science. It tells us about natural climate variability of which our knowledge is still very limited. It holds valuable scientific information and in climate science, with it huge political and economic implications, we need all the information we can get. There are over 40 explanations for the warming hiatus proposed by scientists from small volcanoes, ocean movements, effects in the stratosphere, data gathering problems and many more. They can’t all be right, [but] they are all a valuable contribution to a scientific mystery. It shows us that the real science is not settled. And another thing. About those sceptics who are seeking to deny and undermine climate science. It was the sceptics, not the scientists, who discovered the hiatus, this so-called biggest problem in climate science. –David Whitehouse, The Spectator, 25 February 2016
Were any Obama administration officials communicating with NOAA prior to issuing press releases? The House Committee’s investigation should provide insight into the following questions that deserve answers. To what extent did internal discussions occur about the more questionable choices made in adjusting the ocean temperature data? Was any concern raised about the discrepancies of the new ocean temperature data set and NOAA’s other ocean temperature data set (OISST) that shows no warming since 2003? Were any Obama administration officials communicating with NOAA about these statements prior to issuing press releases? Was the release of the land and ocean temperature data sets, which were documented in papers previously published, delayed to follow Karl’s June press release? –Judith Curry, Fox News, 5 November 2015
h/t to The GWPF.
Are we sure that Karl is a real person and not just a Richard Windsor-type creation with a curriculum vitae?
…Karl is the product of the climate models !! Didn’t you watch Matrix ?? LOL
The Most Transparently Stonewalling Administration Evah
…….. Nobody has done it better ! Evah ! LOL
The Obama administration: the most impenetrable administration in history.
During the last 8 years objective climate data has become an endangered species while the alarmist climate establishment has had the suppott of the President and the Democratic party, possibly because it fits in with the left-wing agenda of control,
A change in the Presiency may, I repeat may, result in much harder scrutiny of the climate establishment and the EPA
Peterson really felt that he was untouchable, then. Now, not so much.
Anthony gets the last laugh.
October 28, 2015:
“Wow, just wow. I told Dr. Tom Peterson in an email this summer that their highly questionable paper that adjusted SST’s of the past to erase the “pause” was going to become “their waterloo”, and Peterson’s response was to give the email to wackadoodle climate blogger Miriam O’Brien (aka Sou Bundanga) so she could tout it with the usual invective spin that she loves to do. How “professional” of Peterson, who made the issue political payback with that action.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/
…When you are good, you are good, but when you are Anthony Watts, you are great !
OOPS.
Could reassignments, resignations, retirements and a big U-Turn be in store for NOAA?
NOAA may really need an Arc or some hasty-pudding commandments to get out of this one!
WOOOO NELLY!
Ha ha
..Ho .Giddy up ,Ho !
Guess I should have the video first !…D’oh !
..Well, as an Agnostic person, I have to admit, that was a pretty pathetic attempt at in insulting Christianity !
…umm, one less ” in “
I agree, Marcus. Christians are much better at it.
So, does Peterson have a private email server? Or a private account under his dog’s name?
Flashback: It is instructive to see how angry and irrational defenders of the “truth” squirm and twist trying to make claims of “cherry picking” when Bob Tisdale uses the same time period that Karl used:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/
“Say anything” comes to mind.
…Yes, but their cherries are better than Bob’s cherries because their cherries come from Calipornia !! ( no, that is not a spelling mistake ) LOL
So what’s going on with Mikey here? Only three serious possibilities come to mind. a) He got royally thrown under a bus by the pseudoscience establishment over legal support in the form of amicus briefs for his court cases and is now desperately trying to claw back a bit of respectability whilst kicking a few others under the bus in his place. b) He knows cooling is coming and is now trying to highlight natural variability so he can later claim ‘well it’s still warming overall but of course there’s some short term natural weather variability temporarily obscuring the signal’. c) He’s started doing actual climate science. Nah – just kidding about (c) – there’s only two possibilities. But which is true?
cephus0…hammer, meet two nails !! Plus 1,000 likes
The Lois Lerner Award for opaqueness in government goes to…….
For those who were interested upthread in the contempt of congress enforcement issue, I have spent some time researching this in depth. Fun for a semi-retired non-practicing lawyer to brush up on an obscure corner of the law. Even went to the computer to input this long comment.
The relevant criminal Contempt of Congress statue is 2USC192, enacted in 1938. Expressly covers subpoenaed failure to appear at a hearing and testify (although right to invoke the 5th amendment remains if one does appear, as Lois Lerner did in the IRS matter) or failure to produce subpoenaed documents.
The best single (shortish) legal enforcement guide is from the Congressional Research Office, ‘Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas:
http://www.fas.org.sgp/crs/misc/RL34114.pdf. Written in 2014 by two CRS lawyers, with links to a much longer and more comprehensive CRS legal analysis. Laymen can understand it. Following a non-legalese summary.
Essentially, there are three ways Congress can enforce a subpoena that is in contempt (as the NOAA situation now if requested stuff is not produced by close of business today, Feb 29, 2016 per congressional subpoena and follow up letters. These correspond to the three fundamental branches of government. Only requirement for any of the three is that the subpoena be lawful; i.e. relate to the matters for which the Congressional Committee or Subcommittee has been given jurisdiction by Congress. Article 1 section 5.2 says Congress gets to make its own rules. Here, the lawful requirement is clearly met. Smith’s Congressional Science Oversight Subcommittee has express oversight of NOAA, NASA, and NSF. Subpoena is lawful.
1. ‘Inherent’, relying on its own constitutional authority as conveyed by Article 1 section 8.18. And, for those interested in subtle legal analysis, in case the section’s first clause does not grant it by implied self reference to section 8, the second clause of 8.18 plus 7.1 (revenue, taxation, budgets) surely does in light of 5.2 and the meaning of oversight. Congress just orders its marshall at arms (and the capital police) to effect the arrest and imprisonment of the contemptors. Unusual but not unprecedented. Upheld in Anderson v. Dunn (1818) and McGrain v. Daugherty by SCOTUS. Challengeable from prison by writ of habeas corpus, limited to two questions:
a. Within relevant Congressional jurisdiction? (yes)
b. Congress proceedings complied with minimum due process standards. Here, yes. Smith has given NOAA months to comply, subpoena is based in part on whistleblowers from inside NOAA (not a fishing expedition), and is limited in scope (Karl paper communications).
2. ‘Executive’, referring the matter to Justice. Justice does not make an independent contempt of Congress judgement. No problems if not an executive branch inquiry. The usual process. Federal marshals just go and arrest.
Separation of powers issues arise if the issue is executive branch contempt, as here. There is case law precedent for Justice lawfully not acting if the President invokes executive privilege, but not otherwise. (Imagine Obama invoking exec privilege over Karl! And the Republicans making political hay, because the exec privilege legal definition is ‘when disclosure would adversely impact executive branch operations’. Adversely impact climate fudging operations????)
3. ‘Judicial’, referring the matter to the federal courts, in effect transferring the subpoena so contempt of congress becomes contempt of court. The federal judiciary has well established contempt arrest and imprisonment powers. Disadvantage is slow, which is why (2) is the normal enforcement process.
Under the present administration circumstances, (2) may be dicey. Maybe Rep. Smith is thinking try (2) if NOAA does not comply, and at the first hint of Justice procrastination use process (1) in an election year. Big political splash. Karl, Peterson, and others (NOAA head) arrested by the Capital Police for contempt of congress. Especially since Smith already knows from whistleblowers what sorts of malfeasance he will likely find email proof of. Smith looks to be playing a good game of hardball.
Obama and NOAA rock, meet Congressional hard place. And also WUWT plus its readers.
Ristvan, nice precis on the relevant law. But I still think the current Republican leadership will cave–they are not nicknamed the “surrender caucus” for nothing
TH, votes count. And on this matter, I do not think Rep. Smith will cave. He has whistleblowers, and the political shark in him smells blood. I hope.
Depends on how useful a drama take down with be to the presidential sweepskates. CAGW is low on voter interest and could be perceived as a petty attack by the neanderthal GOP.
Don’t get me wrong. A fight to create transparency is a good fight, but they may not launch the missile if they perceive the target doesn’t have enough value.
Politics is war …. right ?
Did Lerner lose the right to the 5th by making her statement defending her activities?
Sorry, that question was for ristvan, but anyone is welcome to comment.
But how can this be?
Leonardo told us all in his Oscar speech that
Good actors are by definition not good scientists. They are good at faking (acting) a pseudo reality. DiCaprio is merely exhibit A of a great many. He would have died in days had he actually been placed in the shoes of the mountain man he portrayed in Revenant. PR value for low information voters, maybe high, maybe not. Truth value, zero for sure. Hypocrasy value (boats, planes) infinite.
I would have only given him minutes, not days. You’re much too generous.
says Mark Ruffalo, who has just combined forces with DiCaprio on the Solutions Project, a group of scientists and stars hoping to move America toward full-renewable-energy use.
Maybe they needed to film in the NH summer but Morocco has some nice snow covered mountains.
http://travelthemiddleeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Cedar-forest-Ifrane.jpg
He’s not very well informed. You can find snow in Hawaii. Google it. See pictures. Leo is a silly boy.
If Mann is in there then the unravelling process has started. It’s every Mann for himself. There will be lots of finger pointing. Conspirators tend to eat their own because no one can be trusted any more.
That’s pure gold, Golden.
That’s an astute Goodfellas analogy and consistent with my scenario (a) above. Since we are obliged to pay for this circus then it is as well to extract the maximum entertainment along the way.
Can’t NOAA just stick to, “The dog ate our homework.”? It has an established track record and is rather more credible.
Not in the face of a preserve records order followed by a lawful subpoena motivated by whistle blowers.
In my 50 plus years as an Engineer, I have never met any engineer or scientist, who had a great idea, who was not eager (within the Company or a client) to take all measures with enthusiasm to sell and convince his/her peers and management that the idea or concept is worthy of further consideration by the Corporation. There is always somebody that will try to knock the idea down and they need all the information to overcome their concerns that may be ligament and worthy of consideration.
In my experience, I have fortunately had the opportunity to make a presentation to management in an effort to get their support for proceeding with implementation of an idea. If successful the personal reward is significant if not always immediately personally profitable.
Given the personal reward, it is difficult to understand those who are not willing to defend their “accomplishment” with vigor and complete disclosure of all calculations, data and other relevant information.
It does raise suspicion of a cover up.
“And another thing. About those sceptics who are seeking to deny and undermine climate science. It was the sceptics, not the scientists, who discovered the hiatus, this so-called biggest problem in climate science. ”
Science is a method not the opinion of licensed government officials. As sceptism is a huge part of the method, I object to this idea that there are two groups that are mutally exclusive
legitimate not ligament.
“climate change is real, and it’s happening right now”
Leo,
Nothing “climate” happens “right now”, by the definition of Climate which itself is rather poetic and kind of just forms itself into whatever you need at the time.
Andrew
I would rather know the truth and be wrong than to be grubered into thinking I was right. Public opinion is being manipulated, but nowadays, some are lying, outright, IMO, because they are protected in the media, IMO.