Rep. Lamar Smith has valid reasons for investigating NOAA

Posted: June 10, 2016 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Politics

It’s not hard to imagine Lamar Smith is getting some serious inside info from somebody somewhere, to convince him to pursue an ‘unpopular’ (with climate fanatics) line of enquiry.


By Paul Homewood


Climate Change Dispatch have a good guest post from Steven Capozzola about Lamar Smith’s investigation of NOAA’s “Pausebuster” data fiddling:

Reading the news lately, one might think that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is some sort of backwards character from the 19th century, a “member of the Flat Earth Society.” So great is the venom directed at him that the UK’s Guardian has referred to him as a “Witch Hunter.”

lamar smith

But what exactly is Smith’s crime?

Under his authority as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, he’s chosen to investigate the research methods of the taxpayer-funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Last year, NOAA released a study that found there has been no “pause” in recent global warming. Because the findings contradict every other set of observed data on global temperatures, and were issued ahead of the Paris Climate summit, Smith wants to…

View original post 769 more words

  1. gymnosperm says:

    Accused of a witch hunt. How true! We have a full blown Carbon Witch Craze in progress. Carbon is the Devil and the craven ride it’s back to secret convocations in the woods where lascivious things occur.

  2. oldbrew says:

    No correlation between CO2 increases and temperature trends. That’s the problem NOAA want to hide.

  3. Basil Newmerzhycky says:

    The “Pause” was always an artificial artifact of the last super warm El Nino of 1997-98. Starting analysis at cherry-picked high point to establish a trend isn’t valid. Now when you have 2 Strong El Nino events at either side of a trendline, guess what…the trend remains upward. Maybe the investigation should be of those who relied on statistically flawed methods to artificially create “The Pause”.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Hell why not? Warmists start their graphs at the low points of 1975 or 1900 so what’s sauce for goose…

  5. oldbrew says:

    ‘During a period of La Niña, the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C.’

    That’s a far larger variation than supposedly man-made climate influences.

  6. David A says:

    Basil, the pause predates the 98 El Nino, and your simplistic at best small increase, from 1998 El Nino to 2015-16 event is still well below any dangerous warming and well below the climate models, particularly so for the troposphere which is predicted to warm 20 percent faster then the surface.

    The oceans control GMT on multiple decadal scales. To see our true warming or not we need to balance the positive PDO, dominate El Niño’s plus positive AMO which was cause to most of the warming from the late 1970s until GMT flat lined, with the opposite ocean influences. Give the AMO time to kick in (It has only recently began its turn down from a high) on the negative plus a strong La Nina. I think then we will see that the bulk of the atmosphere has had almost zero change since the satellite era began in the mid 1970s.

    The answer to the question, How long has the earth gone without any statistically significant increase in GMT cannot be a cherry pick, and if the pause returns, will you acknowledge it?

  7. oldbrew says:

    We need to find out whether temperatures correlate better to solar cycle length than to greenhouse gs levels.

  8. Ned Nikolov says:

    Oldbrew, correlation will not solve the problem since it does not automatically imply a causation. We need to look at the fundamentals of the Greenhouse theory and address the question, which variables (forcings) explain the variation of observed GMTs across a wide range of planetary environments… The global temperature of Earth should be determined by the same forcings that control GMT on other planets and moons. An objective analysis shows that GMT of planrtary bodies with tangible atmospheres (such as Earth) can be explained by solar irradiance and total atmospheric pressure. The thermal enhancement of the atmosphere (a.k.a. Greenhouse Effect) is entirely due to atmospheric pressure and is independent of atmospheric composition. Hence, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is irrelevant to Earth’s climate!

  9. Ned Nikolov says:

    CO2 correlates with temperature on certain time scales simply because changes in temperature cause variations in natural CO2 emissions from land and oceans …

  10. Brett Keane says:

    Basil,wee troll, the Pause is calculated by working backwards from now as far as a pause lasts. Nothing to do with cherries, just honesty. Now, is that not a concept hard for some to gaze upon…….

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB suggested:

    “We need to find out whether temperatures correlate better to solar cycle length than to greenhouse gs levels.”

    – –


    Take due care to distinguish between global averages and systematic SPATIAL variance evolution.

    Solar cycle length and it’s derivatives shape the spatial variance, but they do NOT define the global average.
    See EOF4.

    Solar cycle length steers the SHAPE of meridional heat flow …which can vary at constant global average — same average while flow jets are pointed differently.

    This is a SIMPLE consequence of terrestrial PHYSICAL ASYMMETRY. The physical modelers have all the info they need to model this credibly, but political context has entrenched prejudices interfering with mainstream focus. The majority of influential players are unable and/or unwilling to be sensible about TRIVIALLY SYSTEMATIC variation in SHAPE at CONSTANT global average. What can be done to correct the stubborn human intransigence on this file? I don’t know, but I must assert that it’s intolerably creepy.

    For anyone who’s ready to try the modeling via interhemispheric Schwabe ozone phase asymmetry, I’ve given a SIMPLE tip on Suggestions-19 (illustration at June 10, 2016 at 5:07 pm & related comment above at June 10, 2016 at 2:42 am – ). What is taking these people so long to get serious about something so simple …I cannot tell you, but it’s pretty creepy (and that’s an understatement).

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, also (as I’ve advised the community repeatedly) notice that to get EOF1 to correlate with CO2 they always chop EOF1 off at ~1920.

    They find pre-1920 EOF1 anti-correlation with CO2 mysterious, so they omit it.

    They’re ignoring the heat capacity of the oceans and integral of solar activity.

    The spatial variance of EOFs2,3,&4 is obscuring conventional mainstream perspective on EOF1.

    Advice: Appreciate and respect domineering nature.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    A reminder to both Lamar Smith’s assistants (who could be doing a far better job) and NOAA:

    Your assignment is now almost 1 year overdue: (June 15, 2016 at 7:36 am)