![LadyJusticeImage[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ladyjusticeimage1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In the wake of revelations by whistleblower Dr. John Bates, Congressman Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has renewed demands for access to documents and correspondence relating to the release of the flawed Karl “Pausebuster” paper.
US Congress launches a probe into climate data that duped world leaders over global warming
- Republican Lamar Smith has announced an inquiry to acting chief of NOAA
- He has demanded for all internal documents and communications between staff
- It follows an investigation by the Mail on Sunday and information leaked by Dr John Bates
By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
PUBLISHED: 13:14 +11:00, 19 February 2017 | UPDATED: 19:10 +11:00, 19 February 2017
Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress.
Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications between staff behind a controversial scientific paper, which made a huge impact on the Paris Agreement on climate change of that year, signed by figures including David Cameron and Barack Obama.
…
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238806/US-Congress-launches-probe-climate-data.html
The following is the letter sent by Congressman Lamar Smith to Acting Administrator of NOAA Benjamin Freidman.
Source: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/02.14.17%20SST%20Letter%20to%20Acting%20Administrator%20Friedman.pdf (h/t E&E News)
This is getting serious. NOAA defied efforts at Congressional oversight when President Obama was in charge. I doubt NOAA will enjoy the same immunity from oversight under President Trump.
You can’t prosecute a scientist for making a mistake. You can potentially prosecute a civil servant if they are grossly negligent, cut corners, and provide misleading information to the public.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Off topic, but I dont know where else to post. Remember the mythbusters experiment where they pumped some 73,000ppm of CO2 in a container to get 1 degree of warming? Does the size of the container matter? Does a smaller container need more CO2 ppm to be equivalent to a larger container with less ppm?
In the end what this is all about in the long run is accountability to the tax payer of the government and all of those the government contracts, which BTW includes private institutions which have taken government grants for research.
The bottom line is that everything done, and all data and conclusions and all communications having to do with their work is funded by the tax payer and thus the property of the tax payer. If it doesn’t have anything to do with national security then there is no moral, legal, ethical, or practical justification for even the slightest lack of transparency. Total transparency mandated by clear and forceful laws will end the chicanery.
How about looking into the media buys leading up to the Paris Climate meetings also. It was obvious that huge numbers of media groups were bought off with fake news placement during the build up.
At Club Fed, orange jump suits may be the new white lab coats for NOAA and NASA’s climate criminals.
Better idea. The climate criminals wear white jump suits. That way the regular orange jump suit criminals know who to pick on.
I stand corrected. Their appearance might not otherwise mark them out as different from run of the mill white collar criminals.
Maybe orange with white stripes instead of black ones.
When Bates raised his concerns in 2016 the paper should have been stalled. NOAA’s leadership played politics. Full investigation needed
*15
“He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications…”
NOAA and AGW aside, this point right here should have all Americans concerned over the dictatorial nature of American Bureaucracy in the 21st century. Congress, President and Supreme Court abdicating leadership responsibility to a bureaucracy that thumbs its nose at the three branches of Government. This has been going on for a lot longer than we might think principally because the primary media outlets have been serving as puppet propaganda bureaucratic agencies.
Over at Skeptics Science they say that to incorporate buoys (colder) into engine intake data (hotter),
it does not matter whether you apply a cold bias to the intake data or a hot bias to the buoy data, and you have to do one or the other and I would agree with them if you were only talking SST data. However if you are then going to blend the SST data with the land thermometer data then you are going to introduce an artificial warm bias in the present day (and already having made weasely negative bias in the past and then Hey Presto! Enhanced warming!, Pause busted! Mission accomplished. Trebles all round! You should keep the accurate data sacrosanct and make adjustments elsewhere, if justified
SS is wrong since they don’t know how good or bad the “measured” numbers really are:
Systematic Error in Climate Measurements: The surface air temperature record
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/systematic-error-in-climate-measurements-the-surface-air-temperature-record/
There is zero evidence that the Karl paper was “flawed” or “duped” anyone. It’s results stand as valid science. (And it’s hardly the lynchpin of the global warming consensus or the Paris talks.) The only people fooled are those who believe yet another imaginary scandal has finally uncovered the conspiracy theory they subscribe to. Eye-glazing arguments over whether some set of forms were filed in triplicate or not are not going to change the fact that it is still abnormally warm and getting warmer.
[Is this the opinion of the American Physical Society, from which this comment was published? Why not add credibility to to your words by using your name and APS affiliation – otherwise it’s just noise from an anonymous coward – Anthony]
Abnormally warm compared to what?
The Roman Warm Period? The Holocene Optimum?
No! Your propaganda will not stand.
josh,
When merging or concatenating two data sets of different accuracy, it is NEVER acceptable to adjust the better data to agree with the poorer data! Period!
Zero evidence,Josh?
You sure you read the actual Dr. Karl paper,where he chose skimpy low resolution ship data over a better set of buoy data,to warm it up to meet his objective.
I think YOUR comment really show that you have ZERO evidence to support your claim.
Do you mean conspiracy theory like Climategate. Oh the gatekeepers of global warming said move along nothing to see here, but what everybody saw killed the COP agreements and put future ones in jeopardy (thanks to the brave anonymous insider at U of East Anglia who released these emails). I personally would indicted them for naive stupidity to think a treasure trove of emails spelling out the fraud could remain secret! Good thing there is no law against stupidity. But there is a law against almost everything they actually did to put CAGW together. Yeah “conspiracy theory” is the lefty put down, but this is an age of new world order conspiracies. Most young, sallow parishioners of CAGW are completely oblivious of such things. I think we (and you) are going to get to see the guts of most of them now, though.
above directed to josh re “duping” by Karlization of temperatures.
It is just plain silly to complain of warmth at the top of an interglacial period. And smacks of little acumen in climate science. It’s the interglacial. It SHOULD be warm!
Except that the top of this interglacial was over 5000 years ago. It was also warmer than now 4000, 3000, 2000 and 1000 years ago.
Of course. I asked Tamsin Edwards how one would distinguish today’s arctic Peninsula temps from 11000 years ago when it was 1.3c warmer than today, if humans are causing it today. Crickets….
If there is no room to obfuscate with arm waving, silence is what you get
*antarctic
Mark – How, where and when did you pose your question to Tamsin Edwards? Did you reference the correct hemisphere?
Hey Josh I have a question for you. Men who make scientific remarks imply they know what they’re talking about.
So you tell me what the name of the law of thermodynamics is for solving temperature of some air.
I say, you never worked on anything related to atmospherics in your life so you are so dumb you can’t even tell me that. I don’t care about your PhD or whatever your claims of knowing as much or more than me are,
until you tell me the name of the law for finding out the temperature of some air,
and why it has to have it’s own law different from say… rain or sand?
Explain to me why compressible fluids have their own law of thermodynamics to solve temperature josh.
Or you’re a fake. I don’t care about your name I care about whether you can stand in public and defend your church.
Tell me what the formula for the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of some air josh.
Tell me what each of the factors in the Laws’ equation stand for.
Tell me which one of the factors in the Law is somehow different that the others.
Or you’re a f***g fake.
I personally don’t care who you are, as long as your answers are the right ones.
For instance I don’t know and could give a sh** less who released Climategate. Could care less.
I’m a scientist.
I just check his work.
The man who made the accusations against Karl is the man who drew up the data rigor regulations for N.O.A..A.
How do you think it is that the man made it to be THE NOAA data handling protocols man
and he then says he knows for a fact the protocols weren’t followed, and he’s angry, but he was afraid to come forward, without his having the safety of retirement?
HE just – doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about,,
but you do? How do you know this? I’ve already asked you to show me your chops and talk with me about calculating the temperature of the atmosphere to check if you’re sane, or if you’re one of those warm atmosphere kooks.
The first time you give a wrong answer- I’m gonna know.
And since I’m kind of a genius at making things plain to people, everybody else here’s gonna know too.
Hell half of em are as smart as me. These – we – are the ones the watermelons can’t frighten and we’re the crew with the shovels who are the burial detail for AGW.
So think about what you’re gonna say, get some friends, tell them you need help finding out which frigging law of thermodynamcs is written to solve temperature of some air.
I never have found anybody who claimed AGW might be real, who can answer that question but you can be the first one.
What the Government should do is use the models themselves.
We are pretty sure that the models are tuned assuming a high CO2 sensitivity and that the free parameters are tuned around this to try and match the historical record and produce this result
The new head of of the unit should get some scientists to tune a model, say GISS Model E, around a low CO2 sensitivity and get it to match the record. This should not be that difficult to do given the number of basically free parameters, Black Carbon, Aerosols, Land use etc.
Then stand back and watch the alarmists start to scream about how you cannot trust ‘tuned’ computer models. We know the whole alarm is basically based on ‘tuned’ models and they have little else to justify it.
Use their own tactics against them, if they try and argue that tuned models are not reliable they just shoot themselves in the head.
The issue of whether to adjust ship data to match buoy data or vice versa is just procedural. The elephant in the room is that ship data is universally known to be sparse and unreliable and buoy data is only of use from 2005 onwards. The reason for the buoys in the first place is that everyone knew the ship measurements were rubbish. Alas the buoys also had an upward adjustment applied because they initially showed cooling (which was of no use for policy). So 70% of the planet has no reliable data prior to 2005 and rather suspect data after 2005. The remaining 30% (land) is not much better since the only decent coverage is in the USA, there are serious concerns about urban heat islands elsewhere and there is an obvious correlation between the reduced number of stations and an increase in temperatures since 1980.
Satellites are however mostly reliable and have universal coverage from 1979 and they are backed up by radiosondes (x2) and each other (x3). Again satellite measurement was developed because everyone knew the land+sea data was too sparse and unreliable.
So why not use the satellite data from 1979 added to the land-based pre-1979 to get a universal temperature trend? Well we know the answer to that – it would derail climate policy because the obvious pause tells us that the CO2 sensitivity is towards the bottom end of the IPCC scenarios and hence manmade global warming has been overhyped just like the acid rain & global cooling scares before it.
Now the reason why Mosher and his new ‘Best’ buddies and NOAA are not trusted by skeptics is because they have been trying for some time to spread a false rumour that somehow this utterly crap land+sea mess is better than the satellite data. This despite the fact that satellites are preferred for every other climate measurement. Such a position can only have been reached by rank stupidity or political ideology; there is not a 3rd option.
Skeptical science has three or four articles defending the Karl/noaa study and pointing out that the Bates comment was overblown.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/rose-launches-first-salvo-latest-war-against-climate-scientists.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/bates-knew-people-would-misuse-accusations-to-attack-climate-science.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/this-is-why-daily-mail-unreliable.html
I have also attached a link to Bates original comment on Judith Curry’s blog
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Though oddly – maybe not so oddly, – The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) has asked the District of Columbia federal District Court to safeguard roughly 8,000 pages of privileged correspondence between nine climate scientists. If the study is valid, you would think they would readily publish to data and emails showing the deliberative process in its entirety to quash to skepitcs/deniers talking points. Instead they want to continue to hide the information.
Eric, because both shipping lanes and buoy’s measure sst near coastal areas both must be adjusted to reflect a warm bias. Comparing unadjusted buoy data to Ersst v4 only demonstrates ersst v4’s issues.
How about a charge of making false or misleading statements?
It is a crime for a government employee or contractor to knowingly and willfully either falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.
In view of previous stonewalling, I think that a team of FBI agents and scientists should lead the investigation. Perhaps FBI should form a special team to familiarize themselves with the Soros-funded/led efforts and investigating their application in the US government and elsewhere. FBI can probably spot and trap those behaving illegally.