Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

by Chris White

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said. The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported

…”there is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.

Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.”

NASA and NOAA’s actions, he said, are problematic, because “public opinion is formed by the data that is formed from those organizations and appears in newspapers.”

Neither agency responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Read more:

113 thoughts on “Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

  1. Two rules to live by:
    1) Never believe what a Jihadist says when he is speaking to infidels
    2) Never trust an Alynskyite who believes the ends justifies the means
    They both are permitted to lie if it furthers their cause

    • Here are a couple of Saul Alinsky quotes:

      To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.


      The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means.

      It sure sounds like he thinks the ends justify the means. link
      The whole premise of “Rules for Radicals” is bogus. The idea is to build community solidarity by finding a common enemy against which the community can unite. The chosen enemy may, or may not, deserve what it’s going to get. That doesn’t come into it. The whole point is to build community solidarity and the chosen enemy is just collateral damage.
      The accusation has been made that global warming is the chosen enemy of those who want to destroy capitalism. That’s what Christiana Figueres says and I’m not about to disagree with her.

      • In the African example that was used in Hillary’s book, a village was essentially an extended family.

      • village was essentially an extended family.

        Does that make any difference? From a Nordic perspective, raising a child is the task of the custodians, optimally one or two – usually so that the mother decides if it is one or two – and no one else has much say should the mother believe in an Arabic god or a trinity of a single god. The so common African way – father is nowhere to be seen and children are taken care of by female relatives – is not really something Hillary Clinton would really like to see.

      • “They both are permitted to lie if it furthers their cause”
        you mean like trying to panic people with claims that the tribe is under attack with firearms?
        you mean like claiming that 7 shots sprayed at the science and technology building is a ‘tight pattern’ only someone with extensive ‘personal defense triaining’ would be hard put to duplicate?
        you mean like jim jones did with his tribe in guyana?
        yeah, buddy. don’t trust those guys a bit.

      • gnomish, I’m trying to determine if you are trying to actually say something or if your computer is generating random noise and putting your name on it.
        Who claimed the tribe is under attack?
        Who claimed that the spread was a tight pattern?
        As to Jim Jones, nobody ever claimed that only the government lies. The claim was that only the government can lie with impunity. Jones only evaded prosecution by having the foresight to die first.

      • Father is out killing a porcupine for dinner. So Mother is operating the kitchen utensils.

      • hi MarkW
        my problem, if it is a problem, is that i read and remember.
        also, i was alive and aware when these things happened.
        for reference:
        “the Temple preached that “those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism.”
        “After the Temple’s participation proved instrumental in the mayoral election victory of George Moscone in 1975, Moscone appointed Jones as the Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission.[16] Unlike many other figures who are considered cult leaders, Jones enjoyed public support and contact with some of the highest level politicians in the United States. Governor Jerry Brown, Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, and Assemblyman Willie Brown, among others, attended a large testimonial dinner in honor of Jones in September 1976”
        (that’s just some interesting trivia so you can trace the founder of the ‘drink the koolaid’ meme straight to the liberal mecca)
        the particular matter to which i referred (crying ‘attack’ to provoke panic) was
        “Jones made frequent addresses to Temple members regarding Jonestown’s safety, including statements that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were conspiring with “capitalist pigs” to destroy Jonestown and harm its inhabitants”
        they were kept alarmed and when Ryan visited he told them an military assault was imminent and they had to perform a ‘revolutionary suicide’ because
        “Jones to set up a false sniper attack upon himself and begin his first series of White Nights, called the “Six Day Siege”. During the Siege, Jones spoke to Temple members about attacks from outsiders and had them surround Jonestown with guns and machetes.”
        the last days of jonestown were about jim jones crying doom from military assault.
        here’s the quotation to which i refer that you didn’t recall:
        “Despite my personal defense training, I probably would have struggled to get that tight a “random” cluster with a semi-automatic pistol.”
        the author of which was our host who was making ‘great entertainment’ by generating fake news as red meat for tribalists, i.e. asserting falsehood as if they were facts and at the same time making it all about him and his ninja skills.
        fake is fake and that’s the truth.
        and i know the difference and i’m belong to me, not to any tribe of flying monkeys.
        so, MarkW, when i write something, you must bring to the table intelligence, perspicuity and reason or you will find yourself at the near side of a pons asinorum. you may assume i make sense.
        thank you for inviting me to explain. last time i was simply hooted at by members of the tribe.
        and i provoked them to keep the thread going with their nonsense until the thread was locked.

      • Gnomish it’s not that hard to insult someone whom is ignorant of the subject you make vague remarks about. Just because you know what is in your mind from which you devise riddles as comments. That doesn’t mean the reader is unintelligent, they just cannot connect to how you write thing’s. After reading your explanation it was obvious what you meant. Playing games posting the obscure thing’s you wrote must massage your ego.

      • johchi7
        no insult was intended. i know there are ways to insult somebody very subtlely but this was not one of them.
        as a response to the suggestion that my computer may have been generating random noise, it was quite respectful and addressed the valid queries.

      • Gnomish, long and marginally interesting post.
        Too bad not one word of it addressed the question at hand. That being your apparent belief that Jim Jones would have not been punished for his lies in Guyana.

      • Um, I have heard it stated that the ORIGINAL real African wisdom phrase was:
        “It takes a village to raise an ORPHAN”…
        Big difference.

    • You could add: never trust what comes out of the PR/science divisions of big pharma, GM corporates or the IPPC. Permitted to lie for decades. Science by proclamation.

      • Never believe anything coming out of a group that you personally do not like. Science can be ignored and/or suspended if your personal comfort zone is being violated by the truth. I always thought that was the problem with global warming and Leftists, but apparently it is not the real problem. The real problem is global warming is disliked by skeptics and therefore can be torn apart. Skeptics are skeptics until it runs into their own little “religions” and then they are just like everyone they criticize. They follow pseudoscience just as fast as they can run.

      • PR divisions are paid to put the company in the best possible light, so take everything written by any companies PR departments with a hefty grain of salt.
        However they are not permitted to lie. If they are caught telling outright lies they can and will be sued.
        Just because you choose not to believe the science is not evidence that the companies are lying.

      • Mark,
        The government can however lie with impunity and even legal immunity, and does, unlike businesses, which are liable to be sued.
        Hard to think of an organ of the federal government that doesn’t routinely lie. Not just the EPA, NOAA and NASA, but the BLS, DoD, DoS, Treasury, Congress and the White House. You name the department, agency or administration, its imps and minions lie, every day in every way about anything they want to cover up.

      • Goodness gracious. What companies will be sued for lying? In what alternative universe is this happening? There is so much lying in advertising that it would be impossible to document it all. See here for a start:
        When big pharma began doing “science” it was only a very little time before the age old art of the snake oil salesman took control and tainted all pharmaceutical research Sporting equipment manufactures lie, cosmetics manufacturers lie, vitamin manufacturers lie, patent medicine companies lie, etc. etc. etc.
        Some governments may be able to lie with impunity if news media are lazy, useless or in bed with them (and they are often all three at once). But to paint governments as being worse than the private sector for lying is a far flung fantasy. Get a grip.

      • Sheri says:

        “The real problem is global warming is disliked by skeptics”

        That is simply ridiculous. In my experience, many skeptics consider that if true, the hypothesis of warming of the earth’s climate should be on the whole beneficial to mankind. It is just that many skeptics are dubious of the claim of measurable global man made warming and that such warming will be harmful to mankind and/or the biosphere. So skeptics generally do not “dislike” global warming, they dislike the attempts to bamboozle the public by grant seeking pseudo scientists and green eco-fascists. The prospect of man made global warming is just too good to be true. Consider that if it were fact, we might be able to delay the end of this inter glacial.

      • Robert Austin why would we want to delay the end of this Interglacial Period? That is the goal of the environmental cases trying to reduce the Carbon Dioxide in the environment. When promoting increasing Carbon Dioxide should be the goal to stave off the next Glacial Period that is guaranteed to cause mass extinctions of both flora and fauna on land and sea. People in general are ignorant by indoctrination by government, media and education. Around 70 year’s of indoctrination from extremist and radicals pushing an agenda against capitalism by scientific garbage. Most people do not realize that all the destruction caused by storms would go away if all the ice melts from Pole to Pole to create a tropical environment globally that supports life. Maybe that scares people to live in the tropics year around. It would scare more to have to live in sub zero temperatures year around.

      • BCBill: False advertising is a crime. Saying something that some expert somewhere disagrees with isn’t.
        If you believe that the companies are lying, feel free to sue them. If you are right, you will win.

      • Sheri writes: “Never believe anything coming out of a group that you personally do not like.”
        My personal variation on this theme is “never invest in a company who product you don’t use.” It’s a very similar idea and it prevents me from investing in the IPCC dogma, even though I do own and operate a solar plant for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with AGW or its associated hype.

    • Quoted on :

      We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.
      Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quoted in Max Eastman : Reflections on the Failure of Socialism

  2. The cyclone frequency thing is interesting. The Bureau of Meterology in Australia publishes a cyclone severity/frequency graph. They stopped updating it in 2011 , I guess because it was going awkwardly off script. Now the spin is that we will have less frequent but more severe cyclones. A bit like moving from warming to change.

    • Global Climate Models aren’t very good at simulating tropical cyclones. Never-the-less, they tried simulating tropical activity in a “warmer world” scenario. They found that all the models showed the same or fewer number to tropical cyclones formed with just a slight (5%) increase in overall strength in storms. 5% is well within the noise level of variation in storm to storm strength. That means you would not notice such an increase even in conglomerated summaries. So the overall effect of warming, at least according to the models (a big caveat), is for a decrease in tropical storm activity and destruction. That’s not a big selling point in trying to “stop” global warming.

      • I could be wrong, but I think Ryan Maue’s (sic?) ACE index shows a statistically significant decrease in overall strength in recent time, actually.

      • Well, if storm activity is the result of differences between the cold air masses (northern latitudes) and warm air masses (tropical/subtropical), and it is being shown that what global warming that is occurring is occurring over the Arctic regions, then with less differential between cold and warm air masses one would expect less storm activity.

      • Rhoda R
        April 25, 2017 at 1:06 pm
        Well, if storm activity is the result of differences between the cold air masses (northern latitudes) and warm air masses (tropical/subtropical), and it is being shown that what global warming that is occurring is occurring over the Arctic regions, then with less differential between cold and warm air masses one would expect less storm activity.

        Then again, since we know the “data” from the vast, empty northern latitudes is nothing more than predictions made using spacial weighting and unicorn sweat on stations up to 1200 km away, how do we know the Arctic is really warming faster than the lower latitudes anyway?

    • So, what you’re saying is that in the southern hemisphere, cyclone data is spun the other way.

        • Because cyclones / hurricanes etc… Are created by the Cold air streams and water currents coming from the Coldest part of the Earth – Antarctica – to mix with the Hottest part of Earth – the Equator – they spin northwest in their paths. Why do you think the US Eastern Coast Line is shaped the way it is? It’s been eaten away by millions of year’s of these storms. The Eastern Coast Line is not very stable soil from Florida to Virginia and easily eroded. People are in general ignorant to live below the high water marks left by the previous interglacial Periods, that were hotter than it is now. They rebuild repeatedly after a storm destroys what they own… As if it’s never going to happen again. All they say is “I have insurance to cover it…” which means other people are paying out to rebuild those people’s mistakes. And instead of building with design’s and materials to withstand extreme weather. They throw up more junk that will be destroyed again. Then they complain that the cost keeps going up.

  3. I’m afraid this “Climate: house of cards has hardened into a structure that will have to be dismantled card by card instead of one little nudge. I hope this administration has the will and the backbone to begin the end of this madness. TRILLIONS for 0.5 c?

    • I must admit that I would have expected NOAA/NASA funding to be at risk for failing to follow federal records acts and public ownership of everything done using public money and public systems.

    • It is mind boggling isn’t it. How can congress be so toothless? And the “investigation” will move forward ASAP? When is ASAP? It’s four months into a new administration, do something already.

      • RWT…
        I share your concern but the Obama administration failed to provide information requested by congress on numerous occasions including the IRS, Fast and Furious, Hillary’s e mails, Iran, etc . Interesting the computers all seem to fail when information is requested. Holder was voted for contempt of congress and he blatantly lied about fast and furious as evidence clearly showed and since he was the AG there seem to be nothing congress could do, I note the following request was in 2015, maybe we can get the info if not shredded or disk drives were hit with a hammer or wiped clean with a rag.
        “Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.”
        When we have a complicit media, the government can run roughshod over the congress and all of us.
        I don’t expect they will treat Trump as they have Obama and would if we were stuck with Hillary.
        If for no other reason, the media coming alive as a watchdog was a good reason to vote for TRUMP.

  4. In other news:
    Water found to be wet.
    Polar regions are colder then equatorial regions.
    Fat people like to eat.
    Nothing beats news of the obvious sort.

      • Not according to the BBC they aren’t. You must be a knuckle-dragging, Luddite flat-earther …
        … probably a racist too, and a wanton killer of your grandchildren and their children.
        So that’s proof that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is something that is indistinguishable from zero. Science matters.

      • Damn, I forgot mysoginist and jingoist. Apologies if I didn’t spell those BBC words correctly.

  5. What we see in practice here is what I would call the cyclic-bias protocol:
    STEP 1 — Recognize a cycle of ups and downs.
    STEP 2 — Choose a high point in the cycle, if you want to propagate fear of a low point, or choose a low point in the cycle, if you want to propagate fear of a high point.
    STEP 3 — Create your press releases accordingly, in order to influence policy decisions, trusting that many people will not look at the PATTERNS, but only look at the disparity between your chosen high and low POINTS, trusting your dire predictions based on this truncated view of reality.

    • I like this. It could also be titled “How to cherry-pick for maximum public impact!” One could add “If this trend continues…”. No trends continue indefinitely, but one can sure paint a very scary story by pretending that they do!

      • How to cherry-pick for maximum public impact!”

        It is not enough to cherry-pick. In order to make your footprint, you need a bunch of journalists who are willing to push the cause, i.e. do not question when they see alarmism, and don’t publish when there was no alarmism. Sadly, we have those journalists. A majority of journalists hangs to this rule.
        Our children won’t know what snow looks like. Himalayan glaciers. Greenland to melt in this century. Sea levels to rise metres. Arctic to become subtropical. There’s no limit on “if this trend continues” stuff, when trend is a bunch of hand-picked points with an exponential fit. Mannian science, bad statistical methods and always eager Malthusians.

    • Robert – I think your methodology is very much in play with AGW fanaticism. One of the things that amazes me is that everyone is harping on “warming” when the best data we have shows our climate has been in a cooling trend since the end of the Holocene Optimum, over 6000 years ago. The .5C blip over the past 100 years is noise on that scale, completely insignificant, yet te debate surrounds it. Only very rarely do I hear someone mention we’re in a cooling trend.
      Somehow we’ve allowed the fanatics to set the terms; they jump up and down pointing at a mild (almost unmeasurable) warming over 100 years while flat out ignoring a 6000 year old cooling cycle and we “skeptics” let them argue on that basis, lending credibility to the claim. It’s just crazy.

  6. Every generation has its’ hobgoblin to distract it from the real “black swan” event that is stalking up behind it. People in authority will usually be the last ones to see it coming. Oh, it will be “man made” all right, usually involving large sums of other people’s money.

  7. Before I even read the full article, I can bet that at the end the whistleblower will say something like “but I still believe in climate change. This doesnt disprove that”.

      • Best to use NoScript or similar. Most adverts are served by javascript. NoScript allows the running of each script at the users discretion. Most ad-servers have a name that gives the game away (on this page is an example).

      • I love NoScript. It’s one of the most important add-ons I have.
        I noticed an odd thing about NoScript, though. Normally, NoScript will prevent a webpage from automatically refreshing, one of the more annoying things webmasters do, and NoScript will stop the refresh dead. But not on That website will refresh automatically despite NoScript. No other webpage I visit will do that. UPI has figured out a way around the add-on.

    • I share your pain. I use sometimes Adblockers because the ads make me feel abused. I’m not really thinking I need antibaldness or weight loss recipies, nor I believe I’m the millionth to see an ad nor that ‘hot chicks’ are waiting me at the grocery store (I hope). It’s almost ok with the ad but sometimes I accidentally click them and I’m afraid my computer will be infected by those geniuses.

      • I don’t know where your grocery store is but I’m pretty sure those hot chicks are waiting for me! 😉

  8. They turned the IRS on their political opposition. Is this at all surprising?
    I’ve been flamed here for close ten years for telling you it was always “political” and very little to do with “science”. Since the election that has become the actual “consensus” here in content and commentary.
    They’re still winning by the way. A weak, poorly organized, divided skeptic culture partly to blame. Meanwhile;
    Know exactly how to run a movement by proxy.

    • They may be still winning the PR battle, but they have totally lost the momentum, and the score is almost tied. That is not because of a well organized skeptical movement. It is because they are simply wrong/irrational, and it is becoming more and more obvious to the average Joe.
      The article starts with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and there is an economic cost to emitting it. I have heard that the British definition of a weed is ‘any plant growing where you don’t want it’. So now I guess the definition of pollution is ‘anything existing where you don’t like it’. Pollution is now completely arbitrary, as are the rules that govern how we must deal with ‘pollution’. If CO2 is a pollutant, because it might cause a little warming, then certainly oxygen, with all of its destructive oxidation happening all the time, is an even worse pollutant! Shall we ban oxygen because of all the harm it does, while completely ignoring it’s benefits? That would just be crazy-making!
      Is there an economic/social coast to emitting CO2? Sure. There is a ‘cost’ to anything we do. There are also benefits. We make choices by weighing the cost and benefits of literally every thing in our lives…except carbon dioxide. With CO2, we only look at the cost. Why? Because the benefit of emitting large amounts of CO2 is far greater than the cost, and this would undermine the whole threat of the imaginary hobgoblin of climate change. So the benefits are aggressively ignored.
      Since its founding assumptions are not true, the article is pretty much a waste of ink, and doesn’t even answer it’s own headline question. Why is it so hard for capitalism to go green? Because ‘green’ is now directly connected with socialism. Environmentalism and collectivist thought have merged into a single paradigm, as socialists have adopted the environment as their ‘exclusive’ noble cause. I cannot even call myself an environmentalist any longer, because of the connotation the word has now. In actuality, an environmentalist can be a capitalist or a socialist. Economic philosophy has no bearing on ones level of environmentalism. Prosperity, however, does have a direct impact. People who are worried about getting their next meal are usually not concerned about their carbon footprint or the fate or Oregon snail darters. Capitalist countries generally have cleaner and healthier environments, because the can afford to think about such things.
      Capitalist are already green, but not the shade green that requires them to become socialists!

    • The Fabian coup swung into high gear 2007/2008. It’s typically the most intelligent that resist the reality of being hoodwinked.

  9. The bitter reality is that it has been our lefty friends who have been in d3n!Al of the truth on this and god knows how many other science issues.

  10. Why doesn’t President Trump direct NOAA to cooperate with Lamar Smith’s committee and produce the requested information?

    • Good question.
      Trump may be so busy this is going under his radar at the moment.
      The Agencies involved are still populated by Obama holdovers, so we are still dealing with the Obama administration.
      I don’t really know the answer but I can’t see any reason why Trump would deliberately hold up the release of documents. Trump has nothing to hide when it comes to the CAGW dishonesty. That sounds like bureaucracy at work, to me.

  11. Socialist Science Progressively Marches On…..
    1 Determine the desired result.
    2 Adjust the data.
    3 Adjust the analyses.
    4 Adjust the presentations of the data and analyses.
    5 Block access to the adjusted data and analyses.
    6 Pay The Face $400,000/speech to present the adjusted data and analyses.
    7 Declare the ‘Science is Settled’.
    8 Iterate Steps 1 through 7, until desired result is achieved.

  12. There are many interacting problems in evidence here. First, the bureaucracy is not accountable. It is actually far too large for any reasonable number of elected officials to hold it accountable even if they wish to do so. Second, our government is dominated, greatly, by one of the political parties. Nearly every other nation on earth has governance problems, often severe, when the government and one of the political parties become indistinguishable. Third, Democrats are perfectly happy with this situation and most of the media are Democrats, so there is very little motivation to investigate problems or inform the public honestly.
    If anything ever deserved the label “Gordian knot” this seems to be it.

  13. Can you say “alternative facts”?
    I love how liberals think that only conservatives spin the “facts” to suit their purpose. All politicians do it.
    Politicians shamelessly abuse & debase science & all science and society is worse off for it

  14. Fine exposé, Chris White — thank you!

    Washington D.C. often uses used “misleading” news releases about climate data …

    This isn’t an “Oh, that’s just the way it’s done in D.C.” issue.
    The AGWer-Democrats (and RINO’s, too, of course) are the sole driver of the climate sc@m and the lies promoting it.

  15. A colder world is a stormier world.
    Storms on colder planets have higher wind speeds than on warmer.

    • PS:
      As you must know if you’ve read recent posts here, Antarctica is a very stormy, windy continent.

    • I already gave you the incontrovertible evidence, which you continue to ignore. Compare wind speeds on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune with those on earth.
      As for the polar regions, storms are more frequent there than elsewhere, as they are at colder, higher elevations.
      That the poles are stormy is actually common knowledge. Why do you enjoy making such a fool of yourself?

    • Since when are wind storms not storms? I guess you’ve never been to the Arctic or Antarctic. Even when the wind storm isn’t a blizzard, it picks up snow and ice off the ground, so you get sand blasted.
      You keep digging yourself in deeper and displaying even more ignorance of the most elementary science, such as the relationship between T and P.
      “What is a storm? We’ve determined that swells are made by wind, and wind comes from storms. But what really is a storm? Well, let’s start with some basics. Air covers the surface of our planet and has mass, that is, it has weight and volume, and it can be made to move. That’s fairly obvious. But what causes it to move? Our atmosphere is dynamic, and it’s temperature constantly changes in response to rotation of the planet, changes in seasons and earth’s orbit around the sun. Why is temperature important? Because hot air is less dense than cold air, and when hot and cold air collide, the hot air is forced to rise over the colder air. Cold air typically is dryer than warm air and originates from our planet’s poles. Warm air comes from the tropics/equator. Whenever cold dry air moves away from the poles, it eventually encounters warm wet air moving away from the equator. The warm wet air is forced up and over the cold air. When the warm air is forced up, it causes surface air pressure to drop, sort of like having a small vacuum develop at the earth’s surface at the boundary between the two air masses. Cold air rushes in to fill the area of lower air pressure, which causes more warm air to be displaced upward, and more cold air moves in, forcing more warm air upward, and a cycle starts to develop. Also, factor-in that the earth rotates from west to east, dragging the atmosphere with it. The low-pressure area (also known as a low pressure center or system) starts to rotate, and all this moving air creates wind, and lots of it. In the north hemisphere, wind rotates counter-clockwise around a storm center, and clockwise in the south hemisphere (this driven by the Coriolis effect).
      “So a storm forms in response to an extreme difference in air pressure, driven by the movement of cold and warm air. Eventually either the cold or warm air dissipates, and equilibrium becomes re-established and calm, less-windy weather prevails. A storm can last as short as a few days to over a week. Our atmosphere is covered with areas of relatively high and low pressure, all driven by collisions between cold polar and warm equatorial air masses (for the most part). From a bird eye view, it is this difference in pressure between high and low-pressure systems that makes wind.”
      So, as always, you’re wrong again. Do you really have nothing better to do than subject yourself to repeated public humiliation?

    • I didn’t mention Venus because its wind speeds are less than on earth, as would be expected, despite the density of its atmosphere.
      The gas giants might not have a solid surface, but the ice giants have core liquid surfaces, like most of earth.
      The fact is, as I said, that colder worlds are stormier worlds.

    • Are you perhaps thinking of snowstorms? I’m trying to figure out what you’re talking about.
      The discussion began with windiness. As usual, having lost, you’re trying to move the goalposts and change the subject of the conversation.

    • enargpia doesn’t have a clue how to define a storm. Then when someone corrects his obvious mistake, he claims victory because the other person isn’t using enargpia’s broken definitions.
      It really is sad how far trolls will go to debase themselves.

    • Hurricanes are driven by the pole-equator thermal gradient. That’s why a colder climate is stormier. The thermal gradient is steeper.
      Hurricanes are also driven by equatorial SST. But equatorial SST doesn’t change much, even during ice-ages (snowball earth likely excluded).
      Chimp is correct. The ‘how come the poles don’t have hurricanes, then!?‘ challenge is a total red herring (apart from displaying ignorance).

  16. C’mon, next you’ll tell us that scientists ask other scientists to delete emails to get around Freedom of Information Requests…

  17. Does this come under the heading of ‘No, really?’?
    This kind of thing has been going on in Foggy Bottom since those gasbags in Congress decided that the Dust Bowl was a figment of the imaginations of farmers and reporters, until it blew into town,right into their faces.
    Nothing new here, just confirmation. Your tax dollars at work, folks!
    Thank you for the article!

  18. This is important. Kudos to Steven Koonin for coming out and give is face for this “manipulation”.

  19. We are accustomed to various special interest groups cooking the books to promote their interests in Washington. We don’t expect the science establishment to be cooking the science, but that is what is happening. The arrogance and irresponsibility exhibited by the science establishment is quite amazing. It will take a while for the public to adjust to the idea that organized science is as corrupt as the trial lawyers or the teachers’ union. The global warming scare is nothing but an attempt at wealth redistribution.

  20. What does that have to say about the just finished March for Science? Are the people marching even aware of such bogus data like this? Would they even care if they were told that much of science today is the fudging of data to achieve a predetermined results?

  21. The National Climate Assessment was released six months after the 2013 IPCC report, yet almost all its claims were based on the 2007 IPCC report. This is because the 2013 report recanted all the alarmist claims of the 2007 Report. The Obama Administration’s commitment was to alarmism, not to the best science.

Comments are closed.