A friend of WUWT is appointed – then unappointed – to to help choose top administrators at NOAA

From the “heads are now exploding twice as fast” department.

President Donald Trump is taking aim at one of the federal government’s main agencies for climate change research – the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – and NOAA employees are girding for drastic changes in how they conduct science and report it to the public.


Trump has appointed a leading denier of climate change, Kenneth Haapala of the Heartland Institute, to serve on the administration team handling appointments for the U.S. Department of Commerce, the federal agency that oversees NOAA. Haapala will be in a position to help choose top administrators at NOAA, an agency that conducts atmospheric research and, among other duties, also oversees the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

One NOAA employee said he and many of his colleagues are alarmed by Haapala’s selection.

Haapala heads the Science and Environmental Policy Project, which, among other things, hands out an “April Fool’s Award” to the government official whom it judges had expanded government power through “flimsy”science. The group handed out the first such award in 2012, giving it to Lisa Jackson, who served as EPA administrator during the Obama administration.

An economic modeler, Haapala has little love for federal environmental agencies. In a 2015 videotaped speech, he accused 13 government entities of “selective ignorance” for a report they’d drafted on the potential health impacts of climate change.

Haapala’s transition role in the Commerce Department has caught the attention of some Democrats in Congress. Last week, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the senior Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, wrote a letter to Trump regarding Haapala’s appointment.

“We urge you to remove Mr. Haapala and any others who share his discredited views on climate science from the DOC landing team,” the two congressmen wrote. “He certainly does not understand or appreciate NOAA’s mission and therefore is unfit to serve in any capacity that oversees operations or personnel decisions at the agency.”

Neither the White House nor Haapala could be reached directly for comment Monday. But in a newsletter he continues to write, Haapala disputed the assertion by the two congressmen that he “has made a career out of denying the science behind climate change.”

Writing about himself in the third person, Haapala went on to explain how, as a non-scientist, his views on climate change and other issues have evolved.

“A great influence on Haapala’s willingness to question conventional thinking are the writings of Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher and mathematician,” he wrote. “With no advanced degree in natural sciences, Russell wrote very clearly on many scientific issues of the day.”

Calling itself the nation’s “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA has a $5.8 billion annual budget, with roughly $190 million targeted toward climate change research. It operates several orbiting satellites to collect data on the atmosphere and earth sciences. Before Trump took office, it released a report declaring 2016 to be the warmest year on record globally, following two other record years.

Story Via McClatchyDC.com

As regular readers know, Happala writes the “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup”, now in its 256th edition, seen weekly here at WUWT.

But just as quickly as NOAA employees became concerned, the reason for the concern vanished.

Writing in his Weekly newsletter on Saturday, Haapala responded to a Jan. 24 letter sent to President Donald Trump by two congressional Democrats demanding that Haapala be removed from the Department of Commerce transition team. Haapala said he’d long faced political attacks for challenging scientific findings that human activities were contributing to climate change.

“Daring to confront conventional thinking has its own responsibilities and penalties,” he wrote.

NOAA employees interviewed by McClatchy expressed alarm that Haapala would have a role in the agency’s management. But according to the senior Commerce Department official, Haapala did not attend meetings or offer up names for appointments while serving in the transition.

“From inauguration on forward, he has not had a role,” the official said.

Haapala’s involvement with the Department of Commerce transition was disclosed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva in a letter they wrote to Trump last week demanding Haapala’s removal. The White House did not respond to a request for comment Monday. On Tuesday, it said Haapala no longer had a role in the transition.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article129907134.html#storylink=cpy

Fickle winds blow in Washington, but we’ve always known this.But, NOAA employees still have no idea what’s coming their way. Perhaps a little bit of uncertainty is a good thing, since they seem so certain about their predictions of climate change.

141 thoughts on “A friend of WUWT is appointed – then unappointed – to to help choose top administrators at NOAA

  1. Perhaps a little bit of uncertainty is a good thing, since they seem so certain about their predictions of climate change.

    NOAA has never known how to deal with uncertainty.

    • These security certificate alerts are making WordPress almost impossible to use.
      *.btrill.com is a consistent violator. If WordPress is so hard up for ad revenue for it to transmit sites with improper security certificates, then WordPress is a dying organization.

      • Hmmm – I didn’t notice when this started. I’m also using LetsEncrypt and have zero issues with security configuration. WUWT is currently showing yellow instead of green, which is still better than red.
        Every site should now be using TLS, since it’s now free.

      • @ Stephen Rasey
        I agree 100%, some days it is damn near impossible to read past the first 3 paragraphs of commentary, then the next day no problem, then the next 2 days same ole crap,
        Yesterday and the day before was a “no go”, …… today so far, no problem.
        Now I will agree that those “AD sites” probably do have “improper security certificates” that would automatically trigger a “security certificate alerts” ……. BUT ……. me thinks the root problem is a programming error or “bug” in the MS Internet Explorer program that needs to be corrected by Microsoft Corporation.
        “DUH”, a “security certificate alerts” should positively NEVER EVER “freeze up” the OS so that the PC owner/operator is completely helpless to do anything about it other than “restarting” their PC or going to Task Manaker and resetting or clearing the “Internet Explorer” task.
        It is pretty frigging stupid for a computer programmer to generate “code” that offers the PC operator two (2) choices of “key-entered” remedial actions to resolve a “problem” …… but then disregard both choices by the operator and repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat the same damn error message until all of available RAM memory has been confiscated and the CP is using 100% of processing time.
        When my Internet Explorer hangs up due to the above, …… my only recourse is to play Solitaire …. or load Microsoft Edge, ….. which I hate with a passion, ….. and continue my reading of WUWT.
        Cheers. Sam C

      • I have been running my PCs on a lightweight version of Ubuntu (Linux variant) for over a year. Even with Chrome no problems at all.
        Consider dumping Windows. Plus your hardware will remain adequate long after Windows bloat would have compelled you to upgrade.

      • FWIW, I read this on Macs and iOS and don’t have any idea what this is about. Must be an MS issue.

      • A different problem, at least on Macs, is that, if you leave and MS Office program (particularly Word) open and do not use it, it eventually brings everything else to a halt; something about it saving multiple temporary back up files.
        Also, the latest OS-10.12.2 added Siri to my laptop and things went to cold molasses. Activity Monitor showed that the heating fan near my desk had Siri working overtime trying to make sense of what the fan was saying—up to 95% of CPU activity was Siri. Ouch. Turned her off in System Preferences.

      • Markopanama: Agreed. I have little problem with WordPress on my iMac. I suspect it’s Microsoft related. Macs can be annoying with security alerts, but they don’t seem to make using a program difficult to impossible. Most of the time, I can just tell the system to ignore the alerts if I chose.

      • I’ve got a yellow flag, “Parts of this page are not secure such as pictures” which is perfectly reasonable for a web page displaying content from other sites. I’m using Mozilla in kubuntu and everything is running fine here, other sites have a tendency for flash to crash in my set up.

      • In Firefox no problem. I use Linux, but Firefox is multi-platform, so also in Windows. Dual booting both Windows and Linux no problem either, and choosing say Lubuntu-linux gives a smooth transition from Windows. When in doubt first give it a try on some old pc or laptop, grab a live linux cd or usb – it will fix the dual boot for you.

      • A Windows + IE problem. Try any other browser than IE, and you will probably see the problem resolve. The sites probably have a current certificate available, if IE would only update it’s cached version from it. (BTW, certificates are not stored with your cookies – you usually have to go elsewhere to clear all certificates.)
        As a last resort, there are ad blockers. (Which reminds me, I just rebuilt this system, I need to turn the blocker off for WUWT and a few other places. Some sites deserve my revenue, others do not.)

      • I thought I was singled out for special dispensation.
        You mean anyone can get this crap as easily as I can ??
        Well I watched a herpetological practitioner literally tear the lower jaw right off a boa constrictor’s head while it was still alive to get it to let go of a small cat that it had just grabbed.
        Well the cat survived with 8 or less lives intact.
        The boa, sans lower jaw wasn’t as lucky.
        And when it comes to tooth grab; I have boas out gunned.
        Wordpress will have to go for something Hipopotmussian to get me to stop reading WUWT.

    • And that is only one example of the huge fraud these climate heroes have been committing. It is more than 100 % sure many of our highly priced climate scientists wiil spend rest of their lives behind bars.

    • If corruption there is, investigation and evidence collecting must happen before any ‘clear out’.
      shutting down something because it doesn’t fit your political views is clearly wrong.

      • “shutting down something because it doesn’t fit your political views is clearly wrong”
        like coal fired power plants?

      • So, Griff, perhaps you can clarify something. I am constantly told “adjustments don’t make that much difference, if any”. So why do them? Why mess with data when no significant change results from that messing? Yet, they do. How much more evidence is needed? That’s enough for a circumstantial case to be made beyond a shadow of a doubt.
        You really have no understanding of politics in addition to no understanding of science. Of course, now most science is politics, so that’s kind of a redundant statement.

      • Sheri
        “I am constantly told “adjustments don’t make that much difference, if any”.”
        Because when a known problem exists adjustments need to be made otherwise the data is wrong or misleading. All the data sets are adjusted and for good reason. Skeptics wave their hands around yelling fraud, but even UAH (the skeptics lovechild) is adjusted. Why would anyone want to use data that gives a false reading when you know it is that way? A good example was the ship intake problem for sea surface temps. It was clear the data wrong, so why leave it that way when an adjustment helps scientist use data that gives a truer reflection of local and global temperatures? I for one have no problem with appropriate adjustments being made to get a more accurate picture. If you think the adjustments are unjustified or unscientific, launch a study to prove it. Oh wait, many have and they all come up with the same result. PS still waiting for the Global Warming Policy Foundation to finish theirs.

      • Similar to Climate Science shutting down debate by claiming “concensus” and labeling the opposition as “Denier”

      • Well Simon just gave the most convoluted rationale as to why it is quite ok to simply make up “data” just because you did a crappy experiment in the first place.
        So why not take the gloves off and simply make up all the data according to your “feelings” of what went wrong before.
        You can’t get the honey back in the beehive without getting stung.
        The correct solution is to scrap the crap that you have and start again with a clean slate, and try to not make so many mistakes this time.
        Your corrected data is no more reliable than what it was 30 or 60 years ago when you tried to measure it.
        SSTs don’t stay put out in the ocean as if they were GPS satellite fixed points.
        You can take your “research” yacht back to the exact same GPS co-ordinates you (vacationed) in six months ago; and be in completely different water.
        It’s called “meandering”.
        Back when I had 200 students in my first year Physics class; I told them all, they could still get good marks with the wrong answer, so long as they demonstrated that they understood the methodology well enough to do it correctly next time.
        And we had some special tricked out experimental laboratory apparatus that made cheats stand out like a sore thumb.
        Pity the student who actually got the correct coefficient of expansion for copper, not realizing (s)he was actually measuring a copper plated Invar rod.
        Cheating is cheating.
        If you later discover you did something wrong; you correct your procedures so you get it right from now on; but if you don’t leave the past erroneous data as it was; then you will never remember what it was you used to do incorrectly. You shouldn’t remake history.

      • Griff
        Like so many other things you do not understand (polar bears; qualifications of Susan Crockford, etc) the US Constitution defines the president as responsible and in charge of executive agencies. If, in the president’s opinion, the agency is doing something incorrect or undesirable, the constitution give him the authority to “shut it down”.
        That’s why elections matter. In case the news has not been delivered under your rock, we just had an election.

    • @ Eric
      thanks for that. What you’ve written (and graphed) is pretty much what I have believed to be true.
      Yet I have been troubled since reading http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/the-nasa-data-conspiracy-theory-and-the-cold-sun/ . The key element that troubles me is this phrase: A denier favorite is to suggest that NASA deliberately adjusts temperatures upward to exaggerate global warming. An absurd conspiracy theory, as demonstrated by the basic fact that the net effect of the data adjustments is to reduce global warming. The next figure shows this. If climate scientists were trying to exaggerate global warming they’d show you the unadjusted raw data!
      So as a sceptic, I have two contradictory assertions, and can place faith in neither of them To resolve the issue, I must measure for myself the discrepancy between raw and adjusted data.
      My biggest problem is that I don’t know how to do this. Can you help me get started? Where did the data come from for your graph, and how can I access it? How was it adjusted and or calculated?
      If Eric is unable to help me, could any other informed person here do so?

      • The Real Climate assertion is backwards. The claim – verified many times here on WUWT and elsewhere – is that the temperature series are adjusted down in the past, with temps closer to the present being adjusted less.
        The issue is that the processes used to homogenise temperatures and account for changes in environment around measuring stations have resulted in a systematic bias towards cooling measured temperatures in the past. This is not a conspiratorial claim, but an assertion that the methods used are faulty and that the fault is being ignored for political expediency.
        But that’s RC for you: disingenuous to a fault.

      • This highlights problems caused by using obsolete methods for measuring items of interest. Temperature is the wrong measurement to measure energy and energy flows. But it’s the only data we’ve been able to get for over a century.
        It’s pretty hard to argue that the number recorded from a Stephenson screen and written down or automatically recorded is wrong. What you’ve got IS the measurement. Adjustment comes into play when trying to use that data for other things, such as measuring long term changes. Instruments break down for awhile, calibrations can drift and other problems such as new buildings or parking lots close by. All can cause problems when trying to analyze time series- missing data, what seems to be wandering numbers out of sync with close by stations, sudden changes in the measurements out of sync with the weather….. Those cause numbers cause serious problems for scientists and statisticians to works with when they want to use the numbers for anything but ~time and place temperature measurement.
        Quoting from a post awhile ago:
        ” John June 1, 2015 at 2:37 pm
        The problem is there is no ‘raw data’. There are many fragments of data but they cannot simple be merged into a single dataset and called ‘raw data’.
        For 1 the distribution of weather stations is not an even distribution. To give them all the same weighting is clearly wrong. Then there are problems such as weather stations that are moved, changes in the time of day the data is collected and changes to equipment. The homogenisation of the data is essential if you are to produce any meaningful data. ”
        That is a capsule summary of why not to do anything to temperature data. It has to evaluated as best you can with what you’ve got and is a lot more uncertain than most scientists want to deal with. Poor correlations and wide error bands don’t make a good impression on reviewers.

      • Leo –
        A mistake being made here is to allow RealClimate to define the skeptical position: “A denier favorite is to suggest that NASA deliberately adjusts temperatures upward to exaggerate global warming.” Data shows that NASA has adjusted past temperatures DOWN which effectively exaggerates current temperature differences.
        Remember, one of the CAGW favorite words was “unprecedented” modern warming.
        It always bothers me when one allows the opposing viewpoint to define ones view.

      • For 1 the distribution of weather stations is not an even distribution. To give them all the same weighting is clearly wrong.

        Averaging readings from different stations is also clearly wrong. Yet, everyone does it. They just want to ignore intensive properties.

    • Much of the insidious hijinks take place in Boulder. ‘Nuff said. I installed some critical cluster computing software in a forecast simulation lab in Boulder, fifteen years ago, an eye-opening experience. I can only imagine how unsettling and threatening the new skeptical regime must be to the cozy, self-important, group-thinking planet-savers ensconced there.

      • I lived in Boulder, Colorado during the early 1970s and wrote code in the Project Sesame program for NOAA. Evidently nothing has changed in Hippieville.

  2. The only new process on Earth that has been identified that can account for the significant tipping of Earth’s carbon balance is humans burning ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels together with other large-scale activities like deforestation, biomass burning, and cement production,” the fact sheet states.
    A bit of a strange paragraph, that says nothing about climate, only the rise in atmospheric CO2. Probably nearly true as to the cause of that rise, but suggesting problems that do not exist.

    • It is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Lack of evidence for one hypothesis is NOT evidence for another hypothesis.
      ‘The only new process on Earth that has been identified that can account’
      A declaration of ignorance. They don’t know, so it must be . . . .

      • @ Gamecock
        What you say is absolutely correct.
        However, I’d hate for WUWT to start to resemble the Alarmist blogs and become an echo chamber of the irrational faithful, so I must add, just as a quick reminder to all of us and to any interested passers-by, that we are aware that just because something is illogical, doesn’t make it false.
        Argumentum ad Ignoratiam is an error in formal logic. It cannot be used to prove the truth of its conclusions. The conclusion is still capable of being true, though it cannot claim that it is true by means of logical necessity.
        As an example of how this works, take this syllogism:
        Napoleon was not Australian.
        Some non-Australians are European.
        Therefore, Napoleon was European.
        We can immediately see the premises are true and the conclusion is true, but the argument is illogical.
        Remeber, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is useless as a logical proof- but it’s pretty good as a rule of thumb.

    • Something tipped the earth’s “carbon balance” into the toilet, reducing it by 90%. We even know what that is: tiny, shelled sea creatures. They turned it into limestone. We are now bouncing off the carbon “floor” at which plants die off, release CO2, then die off again. Man’s release of CO2 has finally gotten the earth off that floor, for as long as it lasts.

  3. Public access to all raw data, past and current should be should be
    public policy change no. 1.
    We want the “Transparency in Government” which BHO promised but
    never delivered.

    • USHCN raw data has been available since I got involved with the surface stations project back in 2008. That’s not the problem. The problem is that their (badly needed) adjustments are just plain wrong.

    • But you also need to know what data were adjusted, when they were adjusted, and how. Sufficient information should be available so that one can take the adjusted data and then restore the original data. I have never seen or even heard of a case where this is true. The whole idea of adjusting is to make the data serve your will, and thus, the methods of adjustment must be kept secret.

  4. Cleaning up the NCDC’s temperature record will be a monumental task and we only want dedicated people to be in charge of that. Just fix it so that it is accurate again.

      • Oh Griff, it is so good to see you back in the comments using your real (?) name vs. all those other names that you’ve been using. Your comments haven’t been as pithy this week as they’ve been in the past, are you too busy trolling other blogs to give us a proper job? Please step it up a little or we’ll have to give GS a negative report. Though I assume you’ll adjust it upwards along with the temp records.

      • If it really is accurate now, then it won’t need any more ‘adjustments’.
        Of course, it really might not be adjusted again, if only because the Alarmists know they are going to be under presidential scrutiny. Still, once it becomes undeniable that they won’t get any more ‘Hotist Year Evar’ headlines without a thumb on the scales, I’m sure the temptation will be too strong to resist.

      • >>If it really is accurate now, then it won’t need any more ‘adjustments’.
        Job done, eh? In that case, we can stop all climate funding and sack all the climate scientists. Deal??

      • Since-1979/80?
        The 1930s were never hot and dusty?
        the records for most 100+ degree days were set Nation wide then..

      • Griff,
        There are numerous ways to present ‘accurate’ but misleading information. I’m pretty sure it has been very very difficult to be a non-alarmist in NOAA lately. We need to fix that by making sure that those who ‘downplay the imminent RCP8.5 business as usual catastrophe by Trump’, may actually come up from hiding and do science freely.
        At the meantime, lot of money can saved by sacking the persons responsible of creating a landscape of fear.
        If you’ve been to Judith Curry, you know how small differences in facts make a lot of difference whether your career continues or not. Tell the sea level does not show change in trend, and you are in trouble. Tell it is not ‘yet’ accelerating, you are safe. Tell your ecosystem is OK, and you are in trouble. Tell the ecosystem might collapse in future, and you will be rewarded.
        Lots of small biases, all in the same direction. Driven by fear of being ostracized. That needs to end and will end now.

  5. For eight long years we’ve been told by the left that Obama’s the President – deal with it.
    Well, you know what …
    And, as far as these agencies are concerned it’s about time their employees get to understand what looming unemployment has looked like for eight long years for people in the private sector.
    Deal with it.

    • Yes, it is time for these people to “move on”. But of course, hypocrites will never heed their own advice.

  6. The aim of any sceptic must be to get the very best REAL science and to get rid of all the fake science, fake temperatures, and fake crocodile tears which have been a feature of NOAA and NASA for some time.
    What we need are people to run these organisations who (in their scientific work) will ruthlessly pursue good quality science and ruthlessly get rid of all the hangers on and climate campaigners in white coats.

    • Well, real skeptics funded the Berkley Earth research, which thoroughly examined the surface temp record, UHI and if it was warming and concluded the data was releiable, UHI wasn’t a problem and it was indedd warming due to human action.
      any other independent/skeptic funded investigation would, I submit, find the same.
      But what seems to be on the cards is kicking out or gagging people without any objective proof they are wrong, or deceitful

      • Anyone who lionizes algor is not a skeptic. Next you will be telling us Susan Crockford is not a polar bear scientist.

      • Griff,
        Mueller,was NEVER a skeptic. This is a lie that warmists love to push, because it is a propaganda gambit.
        BEST is just another data tampering organization.

      • Funny how Griffie only complains about gagging when it’s his guys being told to stand down.
        He’s always applauded when skeptics were shut down.

      • Notice the phrase “due to human action” that always has to be tacked on to:
        “…UHI wasn’t a problem and it was indedd [sic indeed] warming due to human action.” Pray tell us how the component of “human action” was distinguished from natural warming.

      • otter, there are polar bear scientists who take that line. and walrus scientists who doubt her comments on walrus haul outs…

      • The skeptics shut down seem to have had a case proven against them..
        all I ask is prove a case before shutting things down

  7. I don’t know why NOAA and NASA and the whole horde of leftist scientists (activists) are working to dupe the public their draconian policy demand (83% CO2 cuts by 2050).
    Well I do actually. It’s their leftist dream, of a de-industrialized world, or of assuaging their secular guilt through a “sacrifice” of our vital energy. Look at Germany. They feel that guilt most acutely, and they are the ones that have gone the most insane with their “climate change” lunacy.
    Even if the leftist CAGW theory was totally correct, and reductions in CO2 would even make a difference, it’s looking more and more like our society in the coming decades will slowly but steadily move away from CO2 generating forms of energy.
    Like, note this article out today:
    Tokamak Energy plans net electricity production FUSION by 2025 and commercial grid production by 2030: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/tokamak-energy-plans-net-electricity.html
    In some sense getting fusion et al going would be a shame .. if we did it before we were able to get CO2 up to levels like 1000ppm that would provide mega-benefits to the earth in terms of agricultural productivity, de-desertification, and the greening of the planet. Bottom line though is: stop worrying about CO2 emissions! Everything is going to be ok! So all the more power to Ken Haapala.

    • That leftish “dream” – I began to realise what it looked like and how absurd it was, when I started asking myself the question: “who made all the consumer goods the hobbits had in the Lord of the rings”.
      Outside was the leftish ideal: green fields, sheep, fields of corn clearly planted by mechanical devices. Inside were plates, pots and pans, books, paper etc. etc.
      But not a sight of any industry …. except in Mordor.
      And then I realised! Lord of the rings, is not a tail between a hobbit and the dark forces of saruman, it is tail of a hypocritical “Green” society using the products produced in the workshops and factors of saruman, ruthlessly trying to commit mass genocide against another race of people, just because they are fed up with the “Greenies” living in a life of luxury, whilst they attack the workers who make all their consumer goods.

      • For once griff you got something right. I don’t suppose you will make the effort to continue doing so?

      • “That is the daftest LOR summary I have ever read.”
        Agree. SS even confused Saruman with Sauron. (Hmm…)

      • The ‘urbanization’ was building many factories and housing for displaced peasants who then toiled in these factories. That is, ‘Mordor’ of Victorian England.

      • LOR was a fantasy. An unrealistic, but harmless piece of fiction. If anybody thinks they can do better, they are free to try. So let’s get back to reality, OK? The lefties/collectivists pine for those green fields, but not to work in them, no. That pleasure (sarc) is for the rest of us, who being clearly intellectually inferior (in their minds), would be happier to work the fields while they recline in the manor house pursuing loftier goals.

    • Looks like individual corporations rather than National or International efforts are the way to go.
      According to Robert Zubrin’s excellent 2013 book: Merchants of Despair, all ITER had managed to do was spend this money. Not one single fusion experiment was completed in almost a quarter century, buried under bureaucrats & the precautionary principle, I suppose.
      Zubrin is a Ph.D. nuclear engineer, with 9 patents to his name or pending. His book details the Antihumanist backgrounds & genocidal deeds of the Malthusians running the Environmentalist/warming/climate scam.
      He sees fusion as a source endless clean power, the ability to manufacture whatever we require, & as our pathway to the stars.
      John Doran.

    • @ Eric Simpson – February 1, 2017 at 2:43 am

      if we did it before we were able to get CO2 up to levels like 1000ppm

      Atmospheric CO2 measured at Mauna Loa at 1,000 ppm would be super-duper great for the earth’s “green growing” biomass …….. but I honestly don’t believe that human activities, …… even with 100% help of/by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, …… are capable of achieving the aforesaid goal of 1K ppm.
      Given the FACT that there is no detectable “human signature” in any of the atmospheric CO2 measurements or previously recorded CO2 data, …… human CO2 emissions are not likely to be responsible for a 600 ppm increase anytime within the next 3,000 years.

      • Sunsettommy “It is the left who push the absurd Carbon Tax”
        Yes, except … Tillerson, ie Carbon Tax Tillerson.
        MarkW “So Griffie, it’s just a coincidence that almost all of the proponents of CAGW are leftists?”
        Nope. As we know, the leftists dream is of implementing the economy dampening sacrifices that their “solution” to the “problem” demand. The more “conservatives” or corporate softie “Republicans” appear to stray leftward on climate change the more credible the leftists appear in making the claim that leftist climate “science” is not political, and the more they will be able to divide and conquer us. That’s why I’m not thrilled that we don’t give people like Rex Tillerson a hard time about his leftist climate views. If we give him a hard time then there will be less conservatives in the future that will be tempted to go down the same alarmist road. If we let him slide, then the opposite.

    • There is no ‘leftist’ involvement, bias or anything else left about climate science or US climate researchers.
      to say there is is to admit your objections to the science are political, not objective or science based

      • If that is true griff then you should have no problems admitting that skepticsim has No ‘rightist’ involvement, bias or anything else right.

      • “There is no ‘leftist’ involvement, bias or anything else left about climate science or US climate researchers.”
        It is possible that the researches are not politically bent. It is possible that the direction of funds is politically bent, and that the researchers are just following the money.
        With the US money-spigot on invalid scientific conclusions about to be shut off, we’ll see what the researches will do next.

      • Really Griff,
        why is it that ONLY those on the left lionize the obvious bogus Hockey Stick paper,GISS commonly adjusted sets and pretend they found the hot spot. It is the left who push the absurd Carbon Tax,call the critical component of the Photosynthesis process a pollutant,a trace gas that CO2 is,that by magic can overwhelm anything and cause anything to happen in nature.
        You are indeed here to humor us.

      • So Griffie, it’s just a coincidence that almost all of the proponents of CAGW are leftists?
        Note to Courtney, I didn’t say that all leftists are warmists, I said that most warmists are leftists.

      • Ha! Griff has the same kind of centering issues as Mikey Mann, only Griff’s issues are political! Griff’s political “hockey stick” bends left.

      • but otter, the reverse is not quite true..
        climate skepticism and the ‘right’ of the US Republican party are inextricably linked.
        but there is no right wing involvement in the science, that’s true

    • One of the pillars of leftists is energy. It is a two-fer for them. For the present, energy production creates particulate pollution and it produces CO2. But our common prosperity depends upon being able to generate energy at a cost that is lower than the economic value it creates. The left seeks to usher in the secular Utopia in a pristine and natural organic environment, no matter how many human lives it would cost.
      We can see the truth by how much the left demands reduction in the use of hydrocarbon based energy and how they relate to nuclear power. There is a disconnect with respect to fusion, which of course is “nuclear”.
      I anticipate that when LENR or fusion become “real”, that is when the technology is sufficiently developed to be commercially viable, that the left will suddenly find reasons to oppose them. And at that moment we will find that all the scolding was never really about pollution or CO2. It was really about hatred of prosperity. The left does not want every human on the planet to be able to enjoy a refrigerator, a hot water heater, air conditioning or a car. They would be willing to murder (via democide) a billion people to prevent it. For the sake of the planet.

      • You are correct. The far left believes that giving mankind cheap plentiful energy is “like giving an idiot child a machine gun”. They believe that people (except for themselves) are the biggest danger to “the planet” and must be strictly controlled – by them of course. And while humankind is definitely capable of great evil, it is equally capable of great good. In my mind there is no doubt that going backwards is not the way. That leads to ignorance, darkness, and death. We must keep pushing forward towards enlightenment and fighting for the right of everybody to make the most of their lives, without interference from others that think they know better.

      • Buck, it is also true that those suggesting these insane policies never want to live under them. They are the elite (in their own minds) and want to enhance the luxury and power of their lifestyles while the lesser people suffer.

      • Actually Griff, fossil fuel companies are pretty neutral about solar panels and wind farms. They know in the short term that they won’t have much of an impact on them, and that in the long term they will create additional demand for their own product when the “renewables” turn out to be abject failures. Only the true advocates for the poor oppose solar panels since they increase the cost of energy which hurts the poor disproportionately.

  8. I am shocked and delighted at the pace with which the entire climate scare industry is falling apart under President Trump. Remarkable, we should never allow a politician to run for office ever again. Trump is the next wave of leadership, leaders that attempt to do exactly what they said they would. If you can judge a man by his enemies, this guy has a pack crybabies as an opposing force, nicely done!

    • It is wholly unprecendented and utterly shocking that a president would do exactly what he said, prior to being elected, he would do.
      We shall never again be able to trust a presidential candidate to lie through their teeth (“Read my lips…”).:

      • In fairness, the Democrats blackmailed President GHW Bush into breaking his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. If he wouldn’t agree to more taxes, they wouldn’t fund the war.
        Then, having successfully blackmailed him into breaking his promise, they and their press allies crucified him for it, to elect Bill Clinton.

      • After seeing Trump in action, I’ve come to conclusion there was no big difference between GHWB and Clinton.
        I’m sorry people, but you elected a president who will keep his promises, the first time in history.
        Also I’m sure Obama famous sea levels are still healing the same rate they were during his reign. So no loss there.

  9. “…according to the senior Commerce Department official, Haapala did not attend meetings or offer up names for appointments while serving in the transition.”
    Wonder why. Too busy? If he didn’t want the appointment he should have declined it. Oh well. I’m sure a suitable replacement, and by suitable I mean someone the other side will be just as upset about, can be found.

    • Bruce
      “If he didn’t want the appointment he should have declined it.”
      Why would trust such rumors? Seriously, why?

  10. The ignorance in congress should not be surprising. What is alarming is that scientist now parrot congress in their ignorance, and that is a dangerous thing.

  11. Contrary to popular belief, not all NOAA employees are lefties. I would guess my office is 50/50 politically just like the rest of America. We argue about science just like everyone else as well. That’s a good thing! The raw data from observers and sensors is good. The records are mostly good. We can work with that. Under the last administration, the pendulum of truth swung to the left. I suspect by the end of this administration it will swing to the right. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

    • Nonsense! The data adjustments, tricks, and downright deceptions coming from NOAA were not from evenly divided employees, or, such adjustments, Karl fixes, etc would have never been conceived or done.

  12. Denunciations for heresy. The Left as a rule works from the premise that its views are sacrosanct. That flaw in thier make up is well documented.
    The end is near for fake science and its practitioners

  13. Snow accumulation has an enormous effect on ice sheets, and the amount of snow which falls on Antarctica’s ice sheets is mainly determined by two things which probably have little to do with CO2: wind patterns and evaporation from open water.
    If a change in ocean currents resulted in wind pattern changes and/or changes in the quantity or distribution floating ice, that could greatly affect lake/ocean-effect snowfall, which would greatly affect ice accumulation.
    The magnitude of ice accretion from snowfall on ice sheets was illustrated by the team which salvaged Glacier Girl from under 268 feet(!) of accumulated ice, 50 years after she landed on the Greenland ice sheet.
    At 268 feet per 50 years, you could accumulate a mile-thick layer of ice in just 1000 years!
    In Antarctica, the rate of show/ice accretion is nearly as high:
    You get a lot more water evaporation from open water than from ice-covered water, and more evaporation means more snow, so more open water in the Southern Ocean might have caused the ice sheets to grow.
    But where the snow falls also matters. If the snow falls on open water or on floating ice it does not contribute to ice sheet accumulation. But when the snow falls on land, it does. So wind patterns obviously matter a lot, for feeding ice sheet growth.
    Currently, ice accumulation and loss are very, very close to being in perfect balance in Antarctica. It is pretty clear that Greenland is slowly losing net ice mass (but not because of our CO2 emissions, since its ice loss began before we put much CO2 in the atmosphere). But whether Antarctica is actually gaining or losing ice mass is unknown.
    Most recently, this 2015 NASA study reported that Antarctica is gaining 82 Gt of ice per year:
    Based on CryoSat, McMillan (2014) found Antarctica is losing 79 to 241 Gt/yr of ice, though that was based on only 3 years of data.
    Based on GRACE, Shepherd 2012 concluded that Antarctica ice mass change since 1992 has averaged – 71 +/- 83 Gt/yr, which means they couldn’t tell whether it’s actually gaining or losing ice mass.
    Based on ICESat, Zwally 2012 found that Antarctica is gaining ice mass: +27 to +59 Gt/yr (averaged over five years), or +70 to +170 Gt/yr (averaged over 19 years).

    The range from those various studies, with error bars, is from +170 Gt/yr to -241 Gt/yr, which is equivalent to just -0.47 to +0.67 mm/yr sea-level change. That’s equivalent to less than 3 inches of sea-level change per century. In other words, although we don’t know whether Antarctica is gaining or losing ice, we do know the rate, either way, is so tiny that it’s currently having a negligible effect on sea-level and on Antarctica’s total ice sheet mass.

  14. The EPA gives out over $3.3 billion in scientific research, but the administration put a freeze on most contracts and grants, pending further review. So it’s not just government employees who are pooping in their pants, it is all the scientists and organizations that the EPA and NOAA have been funding. Good portions of the contracts are not even for scientific research but for “education” purposes, otherwise known as activism and propaganda.

  15. “… NOAA employees are girding for drastic changes in how they conduct science …”
    Yeah, having to start following the scientific method will be a drastic change for them….

  16. Griff, keep it up. Ware enjoying the sight of another troll descending into the abyss, along with Barclays if they persist. ‘Too big to fail’ won’t work again, we’ve seen the Icelandic solution, and it holds great appeal!

  17. “It [NOAA] operates several orbiting satellites to collect data on the atmosphere and earth sciences. Before Trump took office, it released a report declaring 2016 to be the warmest year on record globally, following two other record years.”

    But the “record” annual temperatures don’t come from the satellite data!
    In fields other than global-warming this might just be put down to an honest mistake, and not really an attempt to mislead the reader. But those scheming in the climate-alarm industry long ago forfeited the right to be assumed to be truthful and sincere until proven otherwise.

  18. Until someone has the cojones to start firing people wholesale nothing is going to change. The people who believe climate change is a disaster won’t go away until the next Ice Age, but their fantasies don’t have to be taxpayer-funded.

Comments are closed.