Congress asks: warming pause – yes or NOAA? 

Posted: November 17, 2015 by oldbrew in Dataset, pause, Politics
Tags:

Seas getting warmer?

Seas getting warmer?


Time for the NOAA to front up and explain to US public representatives how it came up with its own temperature data that ran counter to everyone else’s, as GWPF reports.

Scientists and top officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have agreed to start interviews akin to depositions this week with House investigators, who are demanding to know their internal deliberations on a groundbreaking climate change study.

But the interviews may not be enough to placate the chairman of the House science committee, a global warming skeptic who last week stepped up the pressure on the Commerce Department to comply with his subpoena for e-mails that NOAA has refused to turn over.


Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) wants thousands of e-mails among scientists and NOAA’s staff of political appointees that he thinks will show that the researchers had something to hide when they refuted claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the past decade.

On Friday, Smith appealed to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker to force NOAA to comply with his subpoena, telling her that its top officials have “obstructed” the committee’s oversight role. “More than once, NOAA officials have attempted to shape and direct the Committee’s oversight,” Smith wrote. “Instead of assisting the committee with its Constitutionally-obligated oversight responsibilities, NOAA has refused to voluntarily and under subpoena provide information crucial to the Committee’s ongoing oversight.” Commerce is NOAA’s parent agency.

Full report: NOAA Scientists To Be Grilled By US Congress Over ‘No Warming Pause’ Claim | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

NOAA and NASA seem to have come up with conflicting stories to try and neutralize the inconvenient lack of global warming in the last decade or more.

The NASA version at least admits there’s a case to answer:

‘Recent modeling studies have proposed different scenarios to explain the slowdown in surface temperature warming in the most recent decade.’

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Maybe this is topical:/

    ‘Researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data’
    http://phys.org/news/2015-11-uncover-patterns-scientists.html

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    With the deepest sobriety I advise Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker to demand an explanation:

    Her employees have nowhere to hide. It’s clear cut and simple. There’s no escape. The only sensible course for her employees: Admit error and apologize without further integrity-eroding delay.

    Sincerely,
    Paul L. Vaughan, B.Sc., M.Sc.

  3. michael hart says:

    Nice one, Oldbrew.

    from that article:
    “Studies have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms…”

    I guess it’s difficult to think of many more negative emotion terms than “Oh no, we’re going to fry the planet unless we give up fossil fuels, stop doing almost everything that has improved our lives since the advent of the industrial revolution, and go back to living in mud huts and painting our faces with woad”
    🙂

  4. oldbrew says:

    michael hart: one extra line needed there…’that means YOU, peasants.’

  5. oldbrew says:

    In case you haven’t seen TB’s Twitter feed, it’s starting to unravel for NOAA…

    ‘Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report’
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/18/congressional-climate-change-skeptic-threatens-to-subpoena-commerce-secretary-to-get-noaa-documents/

    ‘Smith says whistleblowers have come forward with new information on the climate study’s path to publication in June.’

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    Floods of dull e-mails aren’t needed to establish that 1+1=2.

    Expedience is feasible:
    Simply demand from Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker an explanation of the graph.

    Nothing else need be done.

    1. Put her on the stand.
    2. Say: “Explain the graph.”
    3. Record her response.
    4. Announce: “I have no further questions.”

    If they’re smart & practical, they’ll simply retract v4 without comment.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    When logic fails:
    Transcend.

    Dramatized analogy (with genders reversed) symbolically encapsulating how Lamar Smith vs. Penny Pritzker will turn out if due process unfolds with integrity:

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    Updated Nov. 21, 2015:

    SST = Sea Surface Temperature
    MAT = Marine Air Temperature
    NMAT = Night Marine Air Temperature

    North of Thermal Equator
    ERSST ICOADS HadNMAT Solar Cycle Deceleration (SCD)

    South of Thermal Equator
    ERSST ICOADS HADNMAT Sunspot Integral (RI)

    Alternating North & South of Thermal Equator (comparative 2 frame animation)
    ERSST ICOADS HadNMAT Solar Cycle Deceleration (SCD) & Sunspot Integral (RI)

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/noaa-tries-to-make-global-warming-slowdown-vanish/comment-page-1/#comment-109964

    — — —

    Kindergarten-level cookbook recipe to isolate NOAA’s vandalism firsthand in less than 2 minutes:

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-13/comment-page-1/#comment-106428

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    For those unable &/or unwilling to subtract one column of numbers from another to verify the v4 IPO “bias” graphs (that’s 99.9999% of climate discussion participants damningly unfortunately), here’s some important testimony:

    Bill Illis (November 22, 2015 at 6:30 pm) wrote:

    “The only reason there are questions like this now is because Tom Karl’s group at the NCDC has started screwing around with the ENSO numbers For the first time. They had left them alone before because of the long history of actual measurements in the region and the importance of this sector’s SST swings, but that is over now.”

    Finally!! A sign that someone somewhere (Bill Illis in this case) has a basic clue. The silence on this core issue has been absolutely deafening. There have been floods upon floods upon floods of peripheral minor criticisms of v4, but for whatever mysterious reason all of the lukewarmist blogs have steered clear of addressing the elephant in the room. This is the first time I’ve seen the issue broached on a lukewarmist blog.

    If anyone has seen the elephant in the room (IPO/ENSO record vandalism) addressed elsewhere (i.e. anywhere other than the Talkshop), please point us directly to commentary.

    From a human nature perspective I find it mindbendingly fascinating that everyone somehow manages to completely evade the main issue with v4 “bias” adjustments.

    Is it mass ignorance by people with low IQs or is it (not so brilliantly because it’s transparent) coordinated deception???

    One hard conclusion we can draw either way and without any further delay (we’ve already granted an exceedingly generous number of months (11) to subtract one column from another):

    Suspiciously stubbornly-enduring failure of lukewarm blogs to raise this core issue as a simply-illustrated centerpiece clarifies beyond all shadow of a doubt a fatal lack of integrity.

    My judgement on that is final.

    I now choose to provoke with frankness:

    I suspect the lukewarm blogs are deliberately acting to shelter NOAA from deserved truly epic embarrassment about the v4 “bias” adjustment blunder. I believe the root of the decision to provide shelter lies in sympathy. The error is unbearably embarrassing and there will be traumatized fears that its exposure threatens noble cause.

    No doubt there are some sensible people (PETER PRINCIPLE) scattered throughout the ranks at NOAA with the wisdom to realize the real threat to noble cause is not accepting responsibility.

    Leaving such black-&-white clear-cut defiant cause for absolutely justified stern opposition is reprehensibly irresponsible. Dark agency could not manufacture such intensity of conviction even with the best propaganda efforts. Just think of the mindblowing level of inspiration that’s being handed out by accident by not only simply but also persistently denying such clear-cut proof. The “leadership” at NOAA is dangerous. It’s up to sensible people scattered throughout the ranks to steer us onto a safer course.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Accountable to the taxpayers – or not?

    ‘Warmist mafia pulls out all stops in helping NOAA hide disappear-pause-study e-mails.
    The harder NOAA tries to avoid handing over the e-mails, the worse it looks for it.’

    http://junkscience.com/2015/11/warmist-mafia-pulls-out-all-stops-in-helping-noaa-hide-disappear-pause-study-e-mails/

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    Never mind the politics. This is neither left nor right. It’s clear cut black & white logic.


    E-mails are NOT needed to subtract one column of numbers from another.

    Like what the f*** does it take to get people to be sensible about this???

    Everyone: Rethink.
    What about integrity?
    Does it mean anything to anyone??

    Very disappointing.

    That a matter so black & white and so clear cut simple cannot swiftly (or even slowly) be resolved is due cause for (deep) despair. This is hard proof: There’s no justice. Integrity means nothing to these people.

    There’s nothing we can do to stop the corruption. It’s out of control. The means do not exist to stop it.

    That is my final conclusion.

  12. oldbrew says:

    They want public policy to be based on hidden or ‘adjusted’ data and unproven theories?

    If Smith’s ‘inquest’ is ‘having a chilling effect’ – their phrase – it can only be because they’ve been caught out doing naughty things and fear discovery.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sun-Climate 101 ERSST ICOADS HadNMAT
    Solar Cycle Deceleration (SCD) & Sunspot Integral (RI)
    North & South of Thermal Equator (8 degrees North)

    Nature is beautiful.
    ((( Why does NOAA aim to mutilate her face? )))

  14. oldbrew says:

    ‘NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?’

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/lamar-smith-noaas-climate-change-science-fiction/

    Lamar Smith says: ‘This administration is pursuing an extreme political climate change agenda and has made NOAA its accomplice. These are not the actions of an objective agency. NOAA needs to come clean about why it cherry-picked and changed certain data, while ignoring satellite data, to get the results it wanted.’

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Satellite data (extremely misguided focus) should NOT be included in SST.

    Mr. Smith:
    The enemy will try everything possible to pull you off-target with myriad minute peripheral distractions.

    On the Pareto Principle please stay sober and remain vigilantly focused on the core issue: The IPO “bias” is the weak foundation that will — in the presence of integrity & justice — crumble like nothing.

    Undercover infiltrators posing as on-your-side “good guys” are trying to tempt you with distractions that collectively amount to: negligible. They aim to get you OFF-target …and exhausted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s