“Rogue Scientists Race to Save Climate Data from Trump”(AKA”The Phantom Menace”)

Guest post by David Middleton

rogue

AT 10 AM the Saturday before inauguration day, on the sixth floor of the Van Pelt Library at the University of Pennsylvania, roughly 60 hackers, scientists, archivists, and librarians were hunched over laptops, drawing flow charts on whiteboards, and shouting opinions on computer scripts across the room. They had hundreds of government web pages and data sets to get through before the end of the day—all strategically chosen from the pages of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—any of which, they felt, might be deleted, altered, or removed from the public domain by the incoming Trump administration.

Their undertaking, at the time, was purely speculative, based on travails of Canadian government scientists under the Stephen Harper administration, which muzzled them from speaking about climate change. Researchers watched as Harper officials threw thousands of books of aquatic data into dumpsters as federal environmental research libraries closed.

But three days later, speculation became reality as news broke that the incoming Trump administration’s EPA transition team does indeed intend to remove some climate data from the agency’s website. That will include references to President Barack Obama’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan and the strategies for 2014 and 2015 to cut methane, according to an unnamed source who spoke with Inside EPA. “It’s entirely unsurprising,” said Bethany Wiggin, director of the environmental humanities program at Penn and one of the organizers of the data-rescuing event.

[…]

Wired

Firstly… If I was a member of the incoming Trump administration, I would be racing to preserve climate data, particularly un-adjusted climate data, from the outgoing management of NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc.

Secondly… I would undo the reorganization of NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center into the National Centers for Environmental Information.  While “data” and “information” are related, they aren’t the same thing.

wkid-pyramid-1-300x225

Source: D Q Global

 

Thirdly… WTF???

[S]peculation became reality as news broke that the incoming Trump administration’s EPA transition team does indeed intend to remove some climate data from the agency’s website. That will include references to President Barack Obama’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan and the strategies for 2014 and 2015 to cut methane, according to an unnamed source…

References to “President Barack Obama’s June 2013 Climate Action Plan and the strategies for 2014 and 2015 to cut methane” aren’t data.  It is information.  Maybe the Rogue Scientists are unaware of the fact that President Obama’s plans and strategies expire in about 4 hours and 30 minutes.

 

This bit is rich…

But data, no matter how expertly it is harvested, isn’t useful divorced from its meaning. “It no longer has the beautiful context of being a website, it’s just a data set,” Allen says.

That’s where the librarians came in. In order to be used by future researchers—or possibly used to repopulate the data libraries of a future, more science-friendly administration—the data would have to be untainted by suspicions of meddling. So the data must be meticulously kept under a “secure chain of provenance.” In one corner of the room, volunteers were busy matching data to descriptors like which agency the data came from, when it was retrieved, and who was handling it. Later, they hope, scientists can properly input a finer explanation of what the data actually describes.

They’re looking for data at the EPA and NOAA that’s “untainted by suspicions of meddling”…

data

Featured Image Source.

Advertisements

149 thoughts on ““Rogue Scientists Race to Save Climate Data from Trump”(AKA”The Phantom Menace”)

  1. They are welcome to panic but frankly I’m more concerned by the likelihood of destruction of records. It wouldn’t be the first time the data was lost and only the adjusted, homogenised calculations remained.

    • “as news broke that the incoming Trump administration’s EPA transition team does indeed intend to remove some climate data from the agency’s website”

      Say what? Are they claiming that if the data isn’t on the EPA website, that the data no longer exists?

      • I know first hand that the outgoing administration removed research studies from the EPA and Dept. of Energy sites that applied to better methods of generating power from coal. And I find is ironic, as many of you do, that they are worried about “data” when many of the climate scientists will not release their actual data because someone might “find something wrong with it.”

      • And I find is ironic, as many of you do, that they are worried about “data” when many of the climate scientists will not release their actual data because someone might “find something wrong with it.”

        I find it neither ironic nor surprising. These snowflakes are merely projecting what they have done to the opposition. They destroyed data, so they assume that their opponents will.

      • Having worked my career for the Federal government, and understanding workers who spend months through years working on research, including myself.

        New people in charge who want past research ‘gone’ are mollified when all publicly visible examples of said research are removed from view.

        Involved researchers, project managers and contractors all keep copies of both the full research and especially critical findings and lessons.
        When management has been involving themselves, aka interfering, with potentially inconvenient research, involved workers keep lists of opportunities and findings with promising results.

        It is amusing that outgoing officials are illegally destroying government funded research regarding fossil fuels.

        Especially concerning, is that a number of those financial lines deep in the alleged ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ account are the costs and salaries for DOE’s research stations. Stations that are allegedly researching improved coal and oil technologies.

        Wonderful plan of the Obama mafiosa, charge research against fossil fuel companies, then destroy the research.

        It is going to be a very busy Department of Justice for the next two years. We may need to build new prisons.

      • ATheoK
        Perhaps only one new prison is needed.
        It could be between Coldfoot and Bettles, in mid Alaska; perhaps a hundred miles NW of Fairbanks.
        it would allow inmates a fair overview of climate – especially if sentenced to ten-to-fifty years (right, depends on the charges . . . . I know.).

        Although why the good folk of Alaska need these cultists in their midst, I cannot say.

        Auto

      • They are inserting the original real data back in that they changed and are going to try and say that the Trump team changed it. I have seen this MANY times in audits before. And it works much of the time since the new principals are glad to get the real data back. Mark my words, the original data may show back up.

  2. What a good idea. These rogues are doing the Transition Team’s work for them. The fake data will all be in one place & the TT know who the compilers are. The rogues should have kept a low profile or indeed no profile at all. Pick them up one by one & show them these.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thumbscrews&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB547GB547&espv=2&biw=1220&bih=586&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-kcf-4dDRAhVICMAKHYAIDnwQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=thumbscrews+medieval

    Gallows humour.

  3. This is just a distraction. Shredders and bleaching software are working overtime in DC right now.
    If I was President Trump, my first Executive Order, announced from the ceremony itself, would be a cease and desist order on all document destruction pending further review across the entire government.
    The corruption of the fanatic Allinskyites who have infested our government is at heart cowardice. They have gotten their power and money and intend to at least hold on to the money if they are being driven out of power. That means covering up the corruption.
    When Nicaragua finally removed the Sandinistas from political power, they allowed the inner circle to stay around as a sign of god faith. Instead they corrupted the country, became super rich and have effectively taken the country anyway. We need to be very careful. The Clintons by way of their phony foundation nearly did it to us. Obama is far less restrained and a much better poker player than the Clintons.

    • Clinton Global Initiative has closed down. A sign of things to come let’s hope. Comrade Stalin understood these things and what had to be done.

      • It is important to remember the the Clinton Global initiative is NOT the same thing as the Clinton Foundation; it is only a subset.
        Chelsea and and the Foundation are still chugging along (although the contributions have inexplicably dropped off /sarc).

      • George, of course but the complete closure of CGI is still hugely significant. They’re not even pretending anymore.

    • Orange IS the “new black,” kiddies; the new sheriff arrives today wearing a shining star. Time to sweep the silly CAGW theory and scam to the dustbin of history. All of Mr. Watts’ distinguished contributors here have certainly done their part. Forward, MAGA!!!

    • I did some IT consulting work for the Executive Office of the President a few years back. Right at the time Obama was first elected and inaugurated. The offices were just a few blocks away from the White House.

      When an old administration goes out, ALL of the hard drives and personal electronic devices are destroyed in the entire EOP organization. New ones are then installed and boilerplated for the new administration. I wonder if that happens in any other federal organization during these administration changes?

  4. Clearly a case of mass psychological projection. The culprits know they’re guilty of data suppression and fabrication, so fear their ideological opponents, i.e. real scientists, might do the same against them.

      • Bingo. That’s presumably also why they aren’t outraged by the dishonesty of people like Michael Mann and Peter Gleick. Many climate activists actually seem to admire dishonesty, in their “allies.” For instance, Gleick was rewarded for his crimes by National Geographic’s ScienceBlog subsidiary, where he’s now their resident “scientist, innovator, and communicator” on his areas of specialization: global water, environment, climate, identity theft, fraud, character assassination, and forgery.

    • “Clearly a case of mass psychological projection.”.., everything about the left fits that description. They cry fake news, when many of their messages can now be seen as fake news. They raise the cry of fascism when their side represents the closest brush with fascism that this nation has seen in some time. Now they talk about the manipulation of data, when they have been doing exactly that for some time.

      • But, that’s the plan. Accuse the opposing side of the sins your side is guilty of. it’s right out of their playbook, Rules For Radicals.

      • they specifically try to avoid that … putting their raw data outside their control would be a disaster for them …

    • I think they think the new regime will also have access to the backups.

      Its in the Trump administrations interest to hide the evidence that proves them wrong on climate change, isn’t it?

      • ‘Proves them wrong’. Ha ha, get you. I’ve been following this debate for 3 decades and haven’t seen a damn thing that ‘proves’ agw theory is correct.

      • UEA Climate Research Unit lost their data so President Trump will be doing them a favour if he finds it.

      • Skankhunt42, er, I mean Griff, I am hopeful for you, that you will realize one day that The Church of CAGW is a cult religion that is doomed to fail.

        Stay tuned.

      • ‘Its (sic) in the Trump administrations (sic) interest to hide the evidence that proves them wrong on climate change, isn’t it?’

        Interesting that you view it as objects which can be hidden.

      • 1) Such evidence doesn’t exist.
        2) All evidence already exists in multiple locations.
        3) You’re an idiot.

      • My gosh, Griff–get a GRIP! Do you have any idea how “climate scientists” have “homogenized” data? Were I to do that in any of my past employments I’d expect to be FIRED on the spot.

        I believe these acts of desperation show they’re trying to get rid of incriminating evidence–Trump isn’t interested in lying to the public–we’ve had Democrats doing that to us for decades, getting particularly obvious during the past 8 years.

        Remember Hillary?–the one that had to run her own email server so she could hide what she was doing as Secretary of State?

        She’s so guilty of pay-for-play I still expect to see her behind bars:

        But please–continue to spew your unbelievable LIES about someone who’s going to clean up Washington by figuratively draining the swamp; it just makes Trump’s objectives more critical than ever!

      • Well if you would just provide the “evidence” here, we will keep it safe.

        So go ahead, we’ve all been waiting for a decade or more for the evidence, yet so far we’ve seen models, and observations and more models…

        You know where the evidence is? Show us.

      • Griff,
        Really? Who exactly has been hiding data?

        “Why should I give you the data when your only aim is to find something wrong with it?” – Phil Jones

      • Grif,
        You are a an interesting example of a fundamentalist true believer.
        The *only* people that has consistently hidden, refused to share, modified, or otherwise tampered with data regarding climate are on your side of the issue. It is your side that fights FOIA requests. It is your side that coordinates avoiding debate, discussion, or independent audits.
        So to answer your question: No,m it is not at all in the Trump Administration interest to hide the evidence that proves them wrong.

      • Its in the Trump administrations interest to hide the evidence that proves them wrong on climate change, isn’t it? @Griff

        No, if there were evidence that there was human caused runaway global climate change, it would be in the administration’s interest to expose the suppressed evidence and actually do something to fix the problem rather than waste trillions on “studies and research” while the Chinese and the Indians destroy us all.

      • @ Griff
        January 20, 2017 at 5:12 am: Barclays sure have slipped from the days they were a reliable and honest bank, and Griff-girl is evidence. Good, we like evidence, unlike the crooks at Penn.

      • Hey Griff! That’s not sea level rise you’re seeing! Your boat’s got a big ass hole in it! Ha!

      • Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for slandering her yet, you unprincipled, mendacious little corporate propaganda mouthpiece?

    • Backups aren’t the issue. The real problem with data preservation is organizational. That is, keeping good metadata on the contents and converting old formats to new as time passes. Everybody, and especially government agencies are bad at this because it’s costly in time, money, and productivity. And it takes the skills of trained specialist librarians to manage it. Recall that iconic NASA data has been lost. Tree-ring files hardly have that same level of meaning.

    • > Have these people never heard of backups?

      In case GISS pulls a “Lois Lerner”, I have GISS monthly data back to mid-2007 and a few scattered months back to late 2005. Anyone interested?

  5. LOL…. The idiots should be shredding everything….. Because it’s all going to be used against them…. But if they want to save the evidence of their malfeasance. Then by all means. Go for it. :)

  6. If its all fake or a scam, investigate , collect the evidence, then act…

    Instead of just shutting it down with a bunch of unproved accusations…

    • Ha ha…..,

      Griff, having a meltdown with his silly whine about something that has been pointed out THOUSANDS of times,that it is indeed a scam going on. The lies with a ship full of money behind it,the numerous personal attacks,big oil,tobacco funding innuendos and so on.

      Where have YOU been,Griff???

    • “Unproved accusations” means ANYTHING that you disagree with. No one can provide evidence to a religious zealot. It’s not about evidence to you—it’s about belief, faith.

  7. This isn’t their IP to choose what to do with, it’s government property. Permanently deleting or altering government-held data records should be an imprisonable offence. Simple as that.

  8. I hope that the Trump administration will issue an executive order, ordering that government and government-supported web sites stop deleting old versions of “their” (our!) data sets, to hide the extent and nature of their alterations, and stop using robots.txt and server configuration tricks to block the archiving of old versions of their data and web pages by archive.org and other “archiving” services.

    If you know what a robots.txt file is then look at the NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC) robots.txt file:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/robots.txt

    Do you see it? The first thing in it is the NOAA’s blanket prohibition on the archiving of NCDC data files!

    What possible excuse can NOAA have for such behavior?

    Why do you suppose these “data rescuers” have never uttered a peep of protest about that?

    • Spot on. I was going to suggest just using ‘wayback’ instead, but your post shows how serious these people really are about data preservation. (And even without it — the attractive and flatteringly illuminated yet strangely detached ‘data scientist’ in the foreground would clue us in.)

      • Tony Heller AKA Steve Goddard and Paul Homewood have been collecting climate data and highlighting the manipulation by Hansen and latterly Schmidt for some years now, and AFAIK Tony Heller has already been in contact with Trump’s transition team, as have a number of high-profile sceptics with information on the subject.

        I think Obama’s teams of data destroyers are going to be thwarted once again by one the properties of the internet, like the proverbial elephant it never forgets.

  9. Five levels of information
    For a clearer understanding on wisdom vs information etc., see Werner Gitt explaining the five level hierarchy in communication: In the Beginning was Information. ISBN 3-89397-255-2

    4 The Five Levels of the Information Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
    4.1 The Lowest Level of Information: Statistics . . . . . . . . 54
    4.2 The Second Level of Information: Syntax . . . . . . . . . . 57
    4.3 The Third Level of Information: Semantics . . . . . . . . 69
    4.4 The Fourth Level of Information: Pragmatics . . . . . . 73
    4.5 The Fifth Level of Information: Apobetics . . . . . . . . . 75

  10. So people who are addicted to smoke and mirrors are defenders of ‘truth ‘ how does that work ?
    Of course the fact that its AGW skeptics that have lead the way on going data and making more available while its climate ‘scientists’ who have short to hide it and ‘adjust it’ getting rid of raw data , is something that has passed these people right by

  11. Wasn’t it in the Climate Gate email somewhere that Jones (?) mentioned that instead of releasing data under FOI request he rather would want to destroy them?

    • Three and a half months before Climategate….

      … they are purging publicly available climate data. If their climate science is so solid, so unassailable, why would they need to do this? Why hide the climate data gathered from public domain sources worldwide such as NOAA and NCDC? Steve McIntyre tells the story …

      ‘By Steve McIntyre, July 31, 2009 — … On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory http://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file – see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990’s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009. …

      The following day, the following listing of station data available since 1996 (discussed in my post CRU Then and Now) was deleted from public access: http://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/projects/advance10k/cruwlda2.zip, though other data in the file remained.

      This morning, everything in Dr Phil’s directory had been removed. …’” – Anthony Watts

      (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/01/publicly-available-data-being-purged-at-uks-hadley-climate-center/ )

      Looking familiar.

      • “The Science of Deceit — … By Dr. Bob Carter —

        ‘… you are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts’. The world stoker of the fires of global warming alarmism, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cleverly suborns this dictum in two ways.

        First, the IPCC accepts advice from influential groups of scientists who treat the data that underpins their published climate interpretations (collected, of course, using public research funds) as their own private property, and refuse to release it to other scientists. … it took Canadian statistics expert Steve McIntyre many years to get the primary data released that was used by another Hadley Centre scientist, Keith Briffa …

        Faced with requests from outside scientists for the provision of the raw temperature data so that scientific audit checks could be undertaken, Hadley’s [data provider at CRU,] Phil Jones, recently asserted that parts of the raw data used to reconstruct their global temperature curve for the period before about 1980 cannot be provided to outsiders because it has been lost or destroyed. …

        (Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/bob-carter-with-a-down-under-view-of-climate-science/ )

      • LP: “More on Phil Jones: Global Warming ate my data — We’ve lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/:

        The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

        Phil Jones, before admitting he’s lost all the data: “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” “

        (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#comment-227951 )

        (for a summary of the above WUWT November 19, 2009 article and its 1,616-comment thread, see the 10th Anniversary anthology at 513)

      • If the data is “lost”, we kick the theory to curb until new data becomes available. You can’t prove the theory if you lost the data. Try again.

    • What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight,
      and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms
      will be proclaimed from the roofs.

      Luke 12:3.

    • I Believe that is exactly the case! There is work in this for a team of computer forensics experts and a passel of prosecutors. We demand to know the truth!

  12. Rogue data saved by political scientists while erasing the raw data is a more apt headline. But the satellites are watching.

  13. Here is another Star Trek tie-in to the modern era: Klingons! Yes, Klingons. The Democrats keep trying to cling onto power.

  14. Three things:

    1) The quote often attributed to Lenin, advising his followers to “Always accuse your adversary of that which you are preparing to do.”

    2) The overriding fear that when these vandals are finished, there will be nothing left of the untampered, original data and we will be left with nothing but the “adjusted” records.

    3) The need to preserve the information on the Obama climate plans because in the fullness of time, it will be useful confirmation of the scientific and political manipulation at the heart of the attempt to exploit a relatively benign natural process for nefarious purposes.

  15. Wow, what a magnificent sham. It’s a combination of virtue signaling and victim signaling. Do they really think people won’t see through them?

  16. I’m thinking how wonderful that as the AGW scam begins to disintegrate, WUWT reaches 300million.
    Thank you for so much Mr Watts!

  17. I would start with the current NASA/GISS and NOAA global surface temperature records with their “World’s highest temperature since records began” and break it down into surface/ocean and country by country and then ask the current owners of the information to produce, level by level, adjustments back to the original & unadjusted raw data. I would then ask them to justify each and every adjustment. If they cannot do that or the original data has been “lost” then clearly they would need to be dismissed and a new team brought in to find all the original data and then build up a new record and publish all the steps they have taken and why.
    There is no other way. They need to get back to the original data and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. No doubt Judith Curry could assist in ascertaining the real uncertainties and what these would do to confidence levels. This would take a while, but needs to be done.
    They also need to look at sea level changes and why gauge and satellite recordings now diverge.

    • The original raw data came from the weather bureaus of foreign countries. It’s recoverable, if those countries were paid to send it in again. Why not make a bid for it?

  18. So let me get this straight … the people who fought tooth-and-nail to hide the data and methods they use are suddenly rushing to preserve the data and methods that they said they would rather delete than make publicly available. And yet the DJT team is somehow the bad guy. Make sense. I’m glad they are rushing to preserve such data. We have been asking for it for at least a decade now!

    • “…are suddenly rushing to preserve the data…”

      No, obviously not. They are only preserving the fraudulent output of their homoginising process. Nobody needs the original data. It would be a great embarrassment if the world somehow discovered it.

  19. I was thinking the other day that there seems to be a near-psychosis amongst some of the groups of people protesting aboutTrump and Brexit. They seem to have actually lost touch with reality. It’s a bit embarrassing and bit worrying.

    • I have no problem with people demonstrating. Everyone has a right to an opinion and a right to let others know it.
      What I do have a problem with, and it’s something that seems to be endemic amongst creatures of the left is this attitude that they have a right to force others to pay attention to them. Be it shutting down highways, or making it impossible to get to work, or to do you work even if you can get there.

      I was reading this morning about a particular snowflake who set a fire in the middle of a road. Why, it was to demonstrate to the world how upset he was that Trump was going to be president. (That road is going to need repair work after the fire is put out, So it’s vandalism as well.)

      • Of course the pyromaniac will shift responsibility for his actions and claim that the govt should repair the road, since it was their fault that he acted in civil disobedience. Actually, it was the media’s spin on reality that incited this kook more than anything.

    • Tim, I don’t know if “lost touch” is accurate. From what I’ve observed, most of these people and groups have had no familiarity with any form of reality in decades.

  20. If someone had predicted all this panic, angst, and irrationality last october I wouldn’t have believed them. Obviously my cynicism is not in high enough gear.

    • I was reading an article this morning about how colleges are setting up safe places for students who are too traumatized by this inauguration to function properly.

      PS: Speaking of irrational, I was reminded this morning that many in the crowd loudly boo’d President Bush when he was introduced during Obama’s first inauguration. Even the left wing commentators were taken aback by such boorish behavior.

  21. So all you believers, if your science is undisputed why is it necessary to destroy the evidence. At what point do you question the why’s that everyone of us have seen.

    • If there was proper science involved all of the data would be readily available to the general public.

      • Data being archived does not mean that it cannot be deleted by presidential order. Ditto backups. NCDC/NGDC/NODC (now collected as NCEI) back up and archive their data, for instance. Also get checksums in creating their archive, or in getting data from the original sources, to verify that the data transferred correctly and/or are still readable from the archive.

        But, no different than how the climate change pages on the whitehouse.gov site disappeared within about an hour of the inauguration, if the president wants the data deleted, zeroes out the budget for staff or hardware, or so on, then the data are gone.

        Archival by one institution does not mean the data are secure forever, or even 4 years. That’s why I’ve thought since early days of the web that it was important to have multiple independent archives of important data.

  22. I wonder how much of the critical and most relevant original data sets are held by the honest guys like Don Easterbrook and Paul Homewood?

  23. One of the greatest fears of Leftists is that their opponents will actually resort to the same tactics they utilize, and one of their greatest accusations is that their opponents actually do resort to the same tactics they utilize.

    • The way the lefties have been destroying their opponents as we have seen lately, is to misrepresent what they say. The way to defeat a lefty is to quote them accurately.

  24. A way to help the de-politicisation of environmental science would be to have a rigid separation between data capture and data processing, i.e. EPA becomes EMA (Environmental Monitoring Agency), NOAA gets limited to ocean and atmospheric measurements, etc. Separate (much smaller and easier to control) govt bodies, and anyone else interested, can then do interpretation and pontification.

    • So you eliminate the National Weather Service, National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and OAR? Leaving only NESDIS (satellites, plus NCDC/NODC/NGDC).

  25. When the biggest fraud in history begins to unravel it’s clear that the culprits think that burying the evidence may save them from future prosecution for the role they played. It seems to me as noted in other posts the only ones who destroy data are the warmists because it is the data which is going to implicate them. Self preservation is a strong motivator and I would not be surprised if a number of whistleblowers emerge from the ranks to blow this scam sky high.

  26. The Van Pelt library. Was that named for Charles Shultz’s character Lucy Van Pelt (aka “the doctor is IN”)? Check your blankets at the door folks.

  27. Sure, but when there’s a FOIA or a request to replicate their methodology, all the data mysteriously disappears.

    These people are beyond parody.

  28. Fox News just announced that the new Trump administration has removed FORMER President Obama’s Climate website. A good start!

    • That was meant to depress you. Better get with the program if you want to be politically correct. Oh, wait!

  29. “…One Nation, Under God, With Liberty and Justice For All.”
    May God bless the United States of America, and all who love it!

  30. Messing around and destroying the data of any kind, that are a national artifact, is still a criminal offense, regardless of any excuses and “justification”., ,

    cheers

    • What is the criminal code citation for this? And what is the definition of ‘national artifact’ that applies to data?

  31. HMMM
    They’re looking for data at the EPA and NOAA that’s “untainted by suspicions of meddling”…

    Now THAT really IS rich.

    So to protect the Data that hasn’t been tainted by meddling (adjustments) they are archiving the NOAAs already heavily adjusted Data sources

  32. The story :
    “Their undertaking, at the time, was purely speculative, based on travails of Canadian government scientists under the Stephen Harper administration, which muzzled them from speaking about climate change. Researchers watched as Harper officials threw thousands of books of aquatic data into dumpsters as federal environmental research libraries closed.”
    is so fake, so fake.

    • Would you be able to expand on your comment. Are you saying that the data wasn’t dumped? If so, more information about where the story came from and how it is fake would be very good.

    • I am aware of some of the “data” destruction in Canada. The Freshwater Institute at the U of Manitoba closed its library. IIRC the faculty, staff and students were told they could take and keep anything they wanted – and given plenty of time to search. Most of the material discarded hadn’t been checked out or used for decades. Obviously, the whole collection could have been transferred to the main library. The fact that it wasn’t signifies that the material was badly outdated, useless, of questionable quality or unknown origin. Most raw data, if it has any value, will have been analyzed and presented in a publication. When I retired I threw out boxes of “raw data”, field notes and communications from studies published 45 years earlier. This is the “stuff” they would be talking about if it had been stored in a “library” instead of a storage room.

  33. The end is nigh CAGW hucksters, your funding has vanished in a flash! Preserve all the phony data
    you can find, your hoax is dead.

  34. Join the discussion…

     Attach
    Post as crystalpoint

     −
     +
     DeleteFlag as inappropriate
    crystalpoint Flash 1005 • a few seconds ago
    There is no scientific evidence to support your claims! Once again, the organizations you get your info from, are relying on, are based upon computer generated models, developed by man/women! These studies rely on what information man/women puts into the computer, and this information is always biased!
    No information gathered from the outer atmosphere from instruments placed in space, is capable of discerning the difference between nature, or man! Until this date, there is no instrument that has been developed, which can divide the two(2) elements! Remember this, insofar as “climate change” is concerned, there are businesses, and men who would make trillions of dollars to be made, based upon your theory and others, whom would profit on such action for man to tackle this subject on their own! This is the bottom line for those individuals and organizations who are pushing the agenda!
    Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr

  35. When all the data that can be recovered is reviewed. The full scope of the AGW hoax will be reveled. This whole issue of climate change is more of a religious movement and less to do with actual hard science and real scientist know this. All we are seeing here is a classic cover-up, so what are these people really hiding. Maybe they are the ones who need to be in jail for fleecing people out of billions of taxpayer dollars for a hoax. Bad science isn’t an excuse…

  36. The faithful recognise ‘the settled science’ of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ depends on hackers, rogue scientists, archivists, librarians, websites and the US president?

    This means AGW is a political/religious movement even in their own eyes. Not objectively and independently verifiable scientific conclusion, such as pV=nRT.

    On the basis of the article 2 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/, I hereby decline AGW and request governments to cease all initiatives contradicting the said declaration, starting with the UN.

  37. They’re emphasizing the importance of ensuring a key trust on how the information is stored, rather than it coming under scrutiny for lack of a “chain of trust.” This isn’t an unusual procedure when it comes to ensuring the integrity of data, including that which is transmitted between this website and my computer. Ask your local courthouse how they ensure the integrity of DNA samples admitted as evidence-there’s a chain of trust, a system of some sort that ensures the integrity of the sample.

    How delusional do you have to be in order to frame such a statement into a suspicious context?

    Second, I’m not sure who’s running the show here, but I highly doubt my uncle would be so ignorant as to write an opinion piece as if it were contrary to that of scientific facts. Furthermore, he’s always claimed to not be an “atmospheric scientists,” so I couldn’t imagine the writer positioned to have any purview or capacity to interpret or scrutinize any data related to any of the agencies referenced in this article, but rather in a position to regurgitate he said she said that’s promoted by lobbyists on behalf of welfare farmers that subsidize their production on my tax dollars, creating a surplus and waste of every product utilized during the production and the final production of the product, itself; market inefficiencies are a problem no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.

    While I’m not an atmospheric scientists, in particular, I don’t see the point in further debating whether or not we believe the scientists data is accurately showing the CAUSE; I’m not going to argue with 99% of the scientific community. Regardless of where you stand on the matter, it’s an issue that we’re well aware of, including your Republicans sitting on the Committees that oversee the legislation regarding our energy sector, including the appropriations for such. My point is, you people need to move on from the debate of the cause, then figure out what steps we can take to get the situation under control.

    Furthermore, a common rhetoric I hear attempting to dismiss clean energy is a claim that we need to focus on domestic oil and coal industries so we can be energy independent of foreign nations in the event we were to be forced into a Declaration of War, and to subdue conflicts of interest in the geopolitical sphere. My response to such rhetoric is simply this; what gives us more independence and freedom to lower our expenditure on energy than pursuing clean energy? It’s proven that the expenditure regarding such capital goods pay itself, greater than that of the former, because it lowers expenditure into the energy infrastructure greater than that of maintaining the old technologies and resources we are currently relying on. Given we would be advancing our energy sector to new technology that harvests resources in an unlimited abundance, this is an obviously apparent benefit to energy consumers. This would also free up budgetary concerns pertaining to the tax burden for the former, allowing us to invest in other industries, or simply save some money to get our deficit down. And for the national security hawks, we get the added benefit of pushing the European region off of their dependency on Russia for over 80% of their energy needs. This would rid us of many conflicts of interest in regards to taking action against the current Kremlin structure and their crimes over the past decades. The Soviet Union never fell, they simply changed the names of their war ships, for example; however, the Soviet power structure remained, and we held no tribunals to imprison those responsible for the atrocities enacted under the rule of the “Soviet Union.” It’s just a different name, along with a different face. The ideology and pursuits remain the same. I encourage those involved with this community to read Winter is Coming by Garry Kasparov; he survived behind the Iron Curtain, along with holding the title for World Chess Champion-his book is a light shed on long since forgotten history and a long streamline of chess moves made on the geopolitical board.

    I get the fact that a lot of people are shaky about moving onto newer and brighter opportunities, because there are losers in the former, but that’s reality-that’s capital good advancement; that’s bank tellers to autonomous capital goods such as ATMs. You can’t fight the future, because you’re going to get stuck behind it. If you’re writing articles under this narrative (essentially lobbying the People), because you’re afraid of losing out on investments you may have in the past, then move onto the future; invest into the development of clean energy infrastructure. Any efforts taken to hinder this progress will be met with failure, and those bankrolling on halting such progress will be the losers. Even with ExxonMobil, with their enormous wealth that is greater to that of some 25 nations combined, must come to terms with this fact. Even the Republicans are legislating with acceptance of this underlying fact; the fact that is the causality behind the articles critiquing the climate threat, hoping to cause stagnation in the clean energy industry.

    Quit fighting the passage of tomorrow, and move onto the issues that matter, such as the fight to preserve our democracy.

    http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/hearing-on-the-future-of-nuclear-power

Comments are closed.