Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NOAA defies Congress' records subpoena...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NOAA defies Congress' records subpoena...

    Troubled by their inability to explain the 18-yr pause in global warming, NOAA's new National Centers for Environmental Information simply erased it from the temperature records and claimed it never happened. Congress, under its oversight authority, decided to investigate...
    US science agency refuses request for climate records
    House of Representatives committee are demanding documents related to study that refuted global warming ‘hiatus’.


    Jeff Tollefson

    The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has refused to comply with lawmakers' attempt to subpoena internal communications related to a recent climate-change study by its scientists.

    The analysis, published in Science in June1, used NOAA's temperature records to determine that global warming has continued apace in the early 21st century.

    Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who leads the House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee, asked NOAA in July for the data used in the study and for any internal communications related to it. NOAA has provided the committee with the publicly available data and has briefed committee staff on the research, but the agency has not turned over the communications.

    [...]

    In response to queries from Nature, Smith released a statement accusing NOAA of rigging its temperature records and stonewalling the House committee.

    “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,” Smith said. “The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”

    NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton denies the accusations. She notes that the agency's study was peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, and has provided the committee with temperature data and briefings on the research.

    “We stand behind our scientists, who conduct their work in an objective manner,” Clayton says. "We have provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue."

    Temperatures rise

    The NOAA study, led by Thomas Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, corrected biases in the agency's global temperature record.

    [...]

    http://www.nature.com/news/us-scienc...ecords-1.18660


    Karl et al., 2015 did this to the data...



    This blatant fudging of the data drawn criticism from some mainstream climate scientists.

    Karl runs the National Centers for Environmental Information, which used to actually be 3 separate scientific entities: NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), NGDC (National Geophysical Data Center) and NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center). A "data center' collates and analyzes data. An "information center" disseminates information - AKA propaganda center... part & parcel of the Maobama Maladministration's legacy.

    Adjusting past data to make the 1930's cooler can reasonably be explained through data homogenization requirements. Adjusting the late-1990's to make them cooler relative to the early 2000's is nothing less than fraud.

    Karl et al., 2015 is almost as laughable as NASA-GISS' top climate "scientist's" comments on it...
    Gavin says the funniest things!

    David Middleton / 1 week ago June 6, 2015

    Guest post by David Middleton
    NOAA temperature record updates and the ‘hiatus’


    — gavin @ 4 June 2015


    In a new paper in Science Express, Karl et al. describe the impacts of two significant updates to the NOAA NCEI (née NCDC) global temperature series. The two updates are: 1) the adoption of ERSST v4 for the ocean temperatures (incorporating a number of corrections for biases for different methods), and 2) the use of the larger International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) weather station database, instead of GHCN. This kind of update happens all the time as datasets expand through data-recovery efforts and increasing digitization, and as biases in the raw measurements are better understood. However, this update is going to be bigger news than normal because of the claim that the ‘hiatus’ is no more. To understand why this is perhaps less dramatic than it might seem, it’s worth stepping back to see a little context…


    Global temperature anomaly estimates are a product, not a measurement

    The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. We do not have direct measurements of the global mean anomaly, rather we have a large database of raw measurements at individual locations over a long period of time, but with an uneven spatial distribution, many missing data points, and a large number of non-climatic biases varying in time and space. To convert that into a useful time-varying global mean needs a statistical model, good understanding of the data problems and enough redundancy to characterise the uncertainties. Fortunately, there have been multiple approaches to this in recent years (GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, Berkeley Earth, and NOAA NCEI), all of which basically give the same picture.

    […]

    The ‘hiatus’ is so fragile that even those small changes make it disappear

    […]

    – See more at:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/#sthash.B1t4pbWO.dpuf
    If “the ‘hiatus’ is so fragile that even those small changes make it disappear,” the underlying trend must also be so fragile that small data fudges are the difference between hiatus and the road to AGW calamity.


    In the meantime…





    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    And?

    "I send...BRAVO...FOXTROT...DELTA."
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Looks like Obama has taught his minions well...

      Comment


      • #4
        Too true, but hey - "it's all junk science" anyway, remember?
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Too true, but hey - "it's all junk science" anyway, remember?
          Well, that's why they "...provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue." as the head of the NOAA stated.

          Congress doesn't need to see the junk part or the bits where they "fudged" the numbers (aka made $h!+ up).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Well, that's why they "...provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue." as the head of the NOAA stated.

            Congress doesn't need to see the junk part or the bits where they "fudged" the numbers (aka made $h!+ up).
            Actually, that last part is true since nobody in Congress is smart enough to understand any of it anyway.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Actually, that last part is true since nobody in Congress is smart enough to understand any of it anyway.
              Odds are there are one or two that might and a few aides and such... But, you're right, Congress is no brain trust. Look how many congressmen are lawyers... That alone should tell you there's an intelligence deficit there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Odds are there are one or two that might and a few aides and such... But, you're right, Congress is no brain trust. Look how many congressmen are lawyers... That alone should tell you there's an intelligence deficit there.
                Yeah...and the top politician is a community organizer. Lot of scientific training there, too.

                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think the NOAA is more concerned about who Else would be given access if the records were turned over to Congress.

                  Give some scientist 'consultants' that aren't on the AGW bandwagon the raw data and you could see the whole sandcastle come tumbling down.

                  Plus if Congress gets it the Internet will soon....and people like Doc among others will NEVER let the NOAA live down any errors, guesstimates, or fudges in their data.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The NOAA is a government agency. That makes it a public servant. Their research and data should be freely and openly available for review and use. It is up to the NOAA to defend their science in an open forum, not hide it from view and say "You wouldn't understand it anyway..."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      The NOAA is a government agency. That makes it a public servant. Their research and data should be freely and openly available for review and use. It is up to the NOAA to defend their science in an open forum, not hide it from view and say "You wouldn't understand it anyway..."
                      Obama and the entire US government are also "public servants, so good luck with that.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Well, that's why they "...provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue." as the head of the NOAA stated.

                        Congress doesn't need to see the junk part or the bits where they "fudged" the numbers (aka made $h!+ up).
                        The stupid thing with this statement is that the NOAA knows that they don't get to decide what to give. The fact that they admit they did means they have violated the terms of the subpoena.

                        When served with a subpoeana, the NOAA knew its options were limited to compliance or moving to quash it.
                        They did neither.
                        Odd that a governmental agency studying the climate would believe that it is dealing with confidential information.
                        A lousy excuse to explain an ignorant act.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There is an obvious solution for Congress - slash NOAA's budget to the bare minimum.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            The stupid thing with this statement is that the NOAA knows that they don't get to decide what to give.
                            Our government has been illegally denying FOIA requests for a while. It was bad under Bush, but reached new highs (lows?) under Obama. The opaqueness of this administration is truly stunning.

                            Still, one hilarious irony is that conservatives don't really attack Obama on that front. After all, they're supposed to be the law and order types and they want to be angry at Snowden and other Wikileaks types.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              Our government has been illegally denying FOIA requests for a while. It was bad under Bush, but reached new highs (lows?) under Obama. The opaqueness of this administration is truly stunning.

                              Still, one hilarious irony is that conservatives don't really attack Obama on that front. After all, they're supposed to be the law and order types and they want to be angry at Snowden and other Wikileaks types.

                              I agree, but this is a subpoena not a FOIA request.
                              A subpoena must be complied with, and has the authority of a court order.

                              I believe that conservatives have attacked BO on this issue, but perhaps not as much as we would like. Probably because many of them hope to be be able to be just as secretive when they regain the WH.

                              While I will take some pleasure in the left's hypocritical claims that the GOP is "shredding the constitution" again for doing what BO did, it distresses me that both sides are happy to behave this way.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X