4.5billion years of climate change, then world goes mad in last 19years without significant warming LOL!!

Ever since the 19th century when people first realised that the earth has regularly changed it’s climate, the evidence for ongoing continuous climate change has been growing. This is patently obvious if you look at the longest temperature series from Central England:

CET_TWIT
Yes there was warming in the 20th century – it’s clearly there! But there was bigger warming from the 1690s to the 1730s. And the cooling after 1730 is comparable to the warming in the 20th century. And in any case, the rise in CO2 was only measured from the mid 20th century and therefore the rise that could be associated with rising CO2 is puny in comparison to several other periods in the last 350 years.

But what is truly daft, is that serious concern about Climate really started with the turn of the millennium (many have suggested it was millennium madness). And, throughout this period of daft insane obsession with “global warming” … the evidence from the satellites clearly shows no significant warming at all:

UAHWhy has the obsession been greatest in the period with no significant warming worth speaking about?

The obvious answer to both why the cult developed and why we’ve had not discernable warming is the same: 1998 there was an El Nino – and because that created a period of huge warming for a few years, that both triggered the daft “Glassy-eyed cult” (GEC), but also meant that any period from 1998 onwards would be biased toward cooling.

The problem for the GEC was that the 1998 warming was not followed by anything comparable until 2016, and by then the data had accumulated showing that the warming had stopped. So, whilst the GEC hoped that 2016 would retrigger the climate hysteria, instead it triggered the election of Trump.

With Trump we will almost certainly see a draining of the climate swamp. This will reveal the full horror within: a culture of bogus data, fabricated results, politically inspired changes, attacks using government money and power on anyone and everything that dares to question their pseudo-science. And with that junk cleared out, we should get back to the bedrock of real science.

That will reveal 20th century warming, but not only will it remove the bogus “Upjustments”, but it will also give us back a true idea of the scale and strength of natural variation. Natural variation which for various reasons I feel likely to give us cooling in the next decade. (Note: because climate is so difficult to predict you’ll notice I started my prediction last year when I could claim to start from an El Nino year!!)

But whatever the climate does, it’s not going to warm as the GEC said it would, so in 20 years time the appalling behaviour of the climate-swamp dwelling GEC is not going to look good. In one hundred years time – when they know the important scientific advances that were missed by this generation of academics because of their obsession with global warming it will look something between daft and criminal.

#NOAAgate

That “fading into irrelevance” kind of scenario, however, is without NOAAgate. There now appears to be at least two whistle-blowers. Dr Bates is the first, the other(s) is/are unknown. They could just substantiate what Dr Bates has said, but they could have much more evidence to damn NOAA and perhaps others. And investigations like this, where there are already 2+ whistle-blowers, have a tendency to bring out more. So, the investigations might start small, but they could quickly grow “alarmingly” :)

And as I have said before: the Republicans will want to make a clean sheet of NOAA and others like NASA to ensure that there is no rumbling Obama inspired scandal that remains hidden undetected to blow up in their own face just before the next elections.

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

#NOAAgate Lamar Smith versus Trump

In a bizarre turn of events, we now have republican Lamar Smith who Chairs the NOAA oversight committee, issuing a press statement effectively demanding NOAA (who are answerable to Trump) comply with their outstanding legal subpoena.

And here’s the fun bit … if NOAA continue to refuse to comply, then it will be Trump who has to agree to take legal action against what is then his own administration. (which is why Obama never took action).

OK, I seriously doubt that will happen, but I do think there’s clearly a little bit of friction detectable in NOAAgate. Because, rather than complying with the law and supplying the documents under the subpoena, NOAA have decided to start their own investigation – and continue to ignore Lamar’s subpoena.

Is this an oversight? Is it a slap in the face of Lamar Smith? Is it just a procedural move? I really can’t say, but we can say that NOAA do not comply by the 28th February Trump’s administration will be in direct conflict with the Congress.

The following is copied from Climate Scepticism:

The Press release is entitled “Committee Probes Allegations of Politicization of NOAA Study” and sets out the background to the issue as follows:

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed.

The committee heard from whistleblowers who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

Here are some excerpts from the letter:

In recent weeks, further information has come to light that exposes the internal conflicts related to this NOAA study. Dr John Bates, a recently-retired principal scientist at NOAA who created science integrity principles at the agency, raised public concerns that the Karl study ignored NOAA standards, was rushed to publication, and was not free from political bias. In fact, Dr Bates wrote in a blog post that lead author, Mr Thomas Karl, had his “thumb on the scale” throughout the entire process.

After explaining that the Committee has a duty to investigate alleged politicization or misconduct, the letter requests the following information by 28th Feb:

  • All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to the release of the Karl study.
  • All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to the release of ERSST Version 4 dataset, or any other dataset used in the Karl study.
  • All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to concerns raised about datasets used in the Karl study.
  • All documents and communications between or among employees of NOAA referring or relating to the scientific integrity of the study, including but not limited [to] the archiving of datasets.

Implications

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Possible syllabus for beginner’s Climate Course.

Several times in the last few months I’ve found myself trying to explain some pretty basic concepts of climate to other sceptics. So, I’ve begun wondering what a basic climate course for sceptics would cover, and my initial ideas are below.

  1. Introduction to Climate: what is it, the importance of the sun and how do we measure climate.
  2. Hadley cells, what are they, what causes them and how do they affect climate and ocean currents.
  3. The weather heat-engine.
  4. Lapse rate and layers of the atmosphere
  5. The Greenhouse effect: Earth’s blackbody temperature, the greenhouse temperatures of various theoretical atmospheres and actual planets like Earth, Mars and Venus
  6. The evidence of ice-ages and large-scale temperature change in the ice-cores.
  7. The origin of the theory of large scale positive feedbacks in the climate and its critique.
  8. The theory of the closed atmosphere and the development of the false inference that: “there is no change to the climate except from ‘non-natural’ (i.e. human) influence”.
  9. Natural variation – what is it, what is its characteristics, where does it come from and the complications it creates when attributing a “cause” to phenomenon.
  10. El Ninos, PDOs, AMOs, ocean currents and other large-scale climatic patterns and other short-term climate/long-term regional weather patterns.
  11. Sunspots, solar activity and climate.
  12. What we know and what we don’t about recent trends in climate and any possible causes and future trends.
  13. Effect of Climate & CO2 on living things (e.g. People).
  14. Climate and planet: a long term perspective.

(Note, I don’t necessarily claim to be an expert in all the above areas, but I do think any decent sceptic needs a basic level of knowledge in most of them.)

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Lessons from the Caterpillar – we need a scientific revolution!

The Caterpillar effect has been proven to exist, not just by one predicted outcome but two. And now this tremendous step forward in the understanding of our planet stands as one of the great discoveries … no?

Of course not!

Because science isn’t about great discoveries, it is not even about great science.

Instead, as I outlined in the “Cassandra theory” (aka the Academic Ape) science is a social construct consisting of people who self-identify as “scientists” acting as gate keepers: creating power for themselves over “science” and keeping out any unwelcome intrusions from people like me (and climate sceptics daring to comment about “climate science”).

Of course, I know how to become one of the great people of science: first I apply for a job within academia – because only those within academia can be acclaimed as the “greats within science”. Then (not having the time myself to climb the greasy pole) I have to find some “great” person – who undoubtedly only has a vague understanding of science themselves. Instead they have the social acumen to gather together around them an entourage of socially inept, but scientifically great individuals, with whom they have a parasitic relationship: stealing their ideas and claiming they are the “great people” of science. And if I am lucky, one will take me under their wing, steal my idea and if I’m lucky and brown nose enough they may just allow me to be a “co-discoverer”.

OK, that’s probably a cruel and over the top caricature of the way science works. Because I’m sure many who get to the top really do believe they are great scientists.

But the point I’m trying to make here, is that the kind of personality that makes a really great scientist, is seldom the kind of personality that makes a great social organiser capable of spinning their ideas to the press and getting all the credit. So usually, the “leaders” of science, are the least capable scientifically.

A good example here, is “Sir” Paul Nurse, head of the “Royal” society. He was woefully unqualified to speak about atmospheric physics, but he had the gall to lecture those who were qualified. So, he clearly didn’t have any compunction speaking out on subjects where he was clueless. So he does not seem to have got to the top by knowing what he was speaking about, and therefore I strongly doubt he was any better on genetics than he was on climate. His success was being a social manipulator, capable of persuading the socialites in the press and establishment that he was the one to put in charge of those who actually knew, understood and produced the science. But it was ever thus, for when has any great industrialist, welded their own ship, soldered their own iPhone?

Likewise in climate, when we look around in climate science, we see the truly great minds, chose to took a course against the “parasitic socialites” of science. And whilst the sceptic scientists acts were truly noble, I also note, that not one of them has progressed, nor even looks likely to progress now that the evidence is clearly backing them.  No one ever got on by being a sceptic – even if without sceptics we’d be going full steam to economic suicide.

Instead the people who have been running science: the social parasites who jumped onto the global warming bandwagon … will continue to run “science” even when the evidence clearly shows them to be wrong. And if you want to get on in science: you have to fit in with these people and not be a sceptic like me.

The lessons for Real Science

And herein lies the real lesson: much of scientific progress is undoubtedly being missed because it does not fit the agenda and/or scientific competence of those that run science. “science” is run by a bunch of truly ignorant people whose main skill is living off the work of others. So, much of what we call “science” is undoubtedly second rate non-sense … but it is second rate garbage that just happens to be socially useful non-sense whose only merit, is that it seemed attractive to one of the numbskulls running “science” and those politicians handing out the dosh.

So, what the Caterpillar Effect & Global warming theory demonstrates, is that good science is easily excluded a fake science is easily included.

And on that basis alone, one must conclude that much of what we are taught in any science degree is rubbish – not obviously the theories that can and have been rigorously tested by trial and error in the field – because if there was any error in these aspects of science, they would have been found long ago. But instead it is the esoteric nonsense we get which appear to be nothing less than wishful thinking invented to fill in the gaps of knowledge.

Take for example “wave particle duality”. This is just two separate and very different theories cobbled together with a lie: “It’s the same theory but … “.  Another classic example is relativity: “because the speed of light is a constant … “. Now tell me why the speed of light is a constant? Indeed to be more accurate, why is it defined as a constant? And so why is everything else defined in such a way that its meaning has to adapt to maintain the fiction that the speed of light is a constant. That was a totally irrational decision, and as everyone whose done maths ought to know, simply by redefining the speed of light as an equation of some form, we can get at least one other parameter to behave in any way we like. So, the decision to make C behave one way, imposes exotic behaviour on other variables: a decision that can be reversed if we chose to do so. Another is the fiction of a “quantum wave” … one that spreads throughout much of the galaxy before suddenly moving in an instant to materialise in the one single atom that happens to absorb this “wave”. It’s total bollocks: bollocks regularly served up to gullible young students who if they are clever enough to know it is bollocks, are also clever enough to know that they will not get on by asking why such bollocks is served up as “science”!

The problem of course, is that if we assume 50% of everything in science is wrong … who knows which 50% that is? Indeed, there is undoubtedly some truth in all the theories; and I also have to accept that even those ideas I’ve grown to think are laughable, could turn out to be right. And likewise, many ideas I cherish as the bedrock of real science will turn out to be wrong.

But, as the global warming scam has shown, the problem with the social construct now called “science”, is that it has become intolerant of dissent. As such, it seems that in many areas of (real) science, the subject has ground to a halt with little progress being made. So who knows what fabulous theories remain hidden if only someone has the courage to lift the hallowed stones of orthodox “science” and see what lies beneath?

The Future

I would therefore state with some certainty, that there remains whole areas of discoveries in even the most apparently “obvious” parts of science. Indeed, this is the natural conclusion of the global warming scam.

There was plenty of evidence against the 20th century being something special. (For example Central England Temperature record). Now, imagine what it is like, in areas of science where no one has yet done the experiment to reveal the contrary evidence? If rubbish like unending global warming can become entrenched when the contrary evidence was so easy to find and interpret, what must it be like in more exotic areas of science?

In order to make progress in science – particularly the older subjects like Physics – we literally need a revolution. We need to reduce the number of social parasites pushing crap like global warming, and start having real free thinkers ready and willing to turn over the stones of established theory and see what creepy crawlies line underneath.

And that’s a revolution I’d be very happy to start!

Posted in Climate | 4 Comments

The hardest thing with Trump – being on the winning side

Much to my astonishment, being on the winning side of the climate debate is proving more difficult than I had thought.

For example, take NOAAgate, after years of slogging it out against the establishment, I assumed course of events would lead slowly bit by bit to a growing scandal.

So, I was quite shocked, with the Republican controlled NOAA’s response of : “That certainly looks wrong, we’ll investigate (and almost certainly take action).

It’s rather like you’ve chopped down a tree and are about to bash down the castle gates and the little old lady inside says: “why not come in for a cup of teas”.

Because I’ve just seen Tony Heller giving a superb presentation to some Washington State legislature – and rather than me steaming under the collar as a sceptic – it was some poor old alarmist sod in the audience.

Slides

Of course, I actually feel quite sympathetic to the poor old sod. For having been totally ignored for a decade or more, I know how he feels.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

#NOAAgate: NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data manipulated to discredit warming ‘pause’

The latest is a news article in the Washington Times:

NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data manipulated to discredit warming ‘pause’

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday that it would review a whistleblower’s allegations that the agency manipulated climate data in order to eliminate the global warming “pause” for political reasons.

The whistleblower, John Bates, who retired in December as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, rocked the climate change debate Sunday with his claim that a top NOAA climate scientist selectively used data to discredit the global warming hiatus in a key 2015 study.

“NOAA is charged with providing peer-reviewed data to the American public and stands behind its world-class scientists,” a NOAA spokesman said in an email. “NOAA takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”

Mr. Bates laid out his allegations in a lengthy article Saturday on the Climate Etc. blog, run by former Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry, and in a Sunday interview with the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail.

She [Dr Curry who had a detailed piece from Mr Bates on her website] cited the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has tangled with NOAA over document disclosure related to the “pausebuster” paper.

“The House science committee has an enduring interest in this topic and oversight responsibility,” Ms. Curry said. “NOAA should respond to the committee’s request for documentation including emails.”

The key here is that there will now be an internal enquiry by NOAA, and obviously we can be pretty sure that the new administration will ensure that that enquiry roots out all the dirt from the Obama era.

I suspect that also means the “(not) Pausebuster” paper will be withdrawn quite speedily – and I’d be very surprised if it were ever republished.

And note the irony here: if NOAA had complied with the original oversight committee subpoena, they could have fought this withdrawal – taken the rap and then speedily re-issued the paper leaving the Republicans a thorn in their site for when Trump came in. However by not taking the rap … the paper is now so easily attacked that it has to be withdrawn under a Republican President.

That would then suggest NOAA will have to return to pre- “(not)Pausebuster” temperature series with it pronounced pause. (SMILE!!)

With NASA rumoured to be ceasing with its climate work, and NOAA’s temperature having it’s wings clicked, Republicans will in one fell swoop have eliminated to two most outrageous “temperature” series.

Indeed, when I think about it the ocean buoy data that was falsely used by other organisations to fabricate their own “(not) pause-busting” metrics is under the control of NOAA. So it is all too likely that this will become “unavailable” (probably the PC will suffer a catastrophic failure as happened to Hilary’s email server and the PC on which the “(not) PauseBuster” work was done).

Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

NOAA’s criminal behaviour

Whilst the allegations of data tampering at NOAA are themselves reason for a full scale fraud investigation, what many commentators are missing is that we now know the reason why NOAA refused to comply with the Subpoena from NOAA’s oversight committee. As Lamar Smith puts it:

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn.  Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.  The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.” (Committee Press Statement)

A Subpoena is a legally binding instrument, and it is a criminal offence to fail to comply. As such it was the President’s duty to enforce the law and either insure compliance or prosecute those who failed to obey by the law.

But NOAAgate was not just a few rogue “scientists” pushing their FakeScience. Nor was it the whole of NOAA pushing FakeScience. Instead it was a whole Democratic administration for whom this FakeScience was a religion – a religion that ignored the laws both of man and nature.mother_nature_denies_global_warming

The origin of the criminal behaviour at NOAA are simple. The climate continually failed to show the demanded warming, despite the clear attempts by NOAA and NASA to mould  garbage data from ground (and tarmac) sensors to tease out a a warming. And after 17 years without warming, the FakeScientists finally cracked.

They gave up any pretence of real science and instead hit on a scheme to add in FakeWarming. They had noticed that the system of measuring ocean temperature had changed from one of of dipping buckets into the sea, to one using Ship intake temperature to one of using buoys (controlled by them). As such warming could easily be created by simply “recalibrating” one of these different methods. In their case they chose to “recalibrate” the far better buoy data to the ship engine intake water temperature.

The result was that a temperature change so small it was arguably just an instrumentation error, could be scaled up massively to completely change the global temperature trend and “get rid of the pause” … something which the Satellites clearly showed existed as global temperature had not changed significantly for nearly 19years.

And what, you may well ask, was the point in putting all those sophisticated satellites up in space to measure temperature – if you then go back to the garbage ground data that was the supposed reason for justifying putting the satellites up in space. The reason is simple: the satellites show the real temperature – and that real temperature does not show their predicted warming.

Undoubtedly as rumours of this unscientific politically motivated changes to global temperature reached Senator Lamar Smith, he stood out against all the FakeNews media and the FakeScientist and demanded that NOAA explain their behaviour.

If NOAA had acted lawfully, all this would have come out before the US election revealing the climate scam for what it is. But Obama was president, he conspired with NOAA’s illegal withholding of their documents. And that was criminal.

Posted in Climate | 4 Comments

Massive Volcanic eruptions with clouds of sulphur gas caused runaway heating that ended ice-age claims Independent Scientist.

Press Release: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A Scottish independent scientist & blogger from Glasgow has found evidence that a massive increase in volcanic activity at the end of the ice-age triggered runaway global warming turning the earth from a frozen wasteland in the flourishing interglacial landscape we see today.

This volcanic activity he claims was caused by a runaway chain of events. First, a small change in earth’s orbit caused warming of the earth’s surface and crust. The crust then expanded forcing huge volumes of carbon containing rock to be forced down into the hot magma beneath the earth. The super heated rock then decomposed releasing enormous volumes of gases including sulphur and the potent greenhouse gases of CO2 and H2O. When these entered the atmosphere they caused the planet to warm further, creating a vicious cycle of more expansion causing more rock to be thrust down into the crust and more greenhouse gases to be released.

Unlike forecasts from Government scientists which predict a few degrees change over the next century, this vicious cycle of warming resulted in up to 8C change. But far from being a disaster, this warming melted the glaciers and turned the the icy frozen surface of the earth into the green oasis today.

“This is a major step forward in our understanding of the way our planet works”, said Mike Haseler known as “Scottish Sceptic” on his blog. It will change the way we think both on the way tectonic plates move causing earth quakes and volcanoes, but also on climate change.

However, Mike is a sceptic on the human causation of recent warming, which he claims to be too small to distinguish amongst the normal natural variation. But the CO2 greenhouse effect is key to his theory. So how does Mike square this? “Yes! CO2 did help cause runaway warming when we came out of the ice-age”, said Mike, “but if there had been nothing to stop that runaway warming we’d have just kept getting warmer and warmer until the earth literally fried. The fact that did not happen and we live in a green and pleasant land today, is proof that something stopped that warming in its tracks. That something was likely something as simple as clouds. Anyone looking out of a hot summer day has seen clouds forming in the afternoon as warm hot air rising. Those clouds block out the sun and it’s warmth. A similar effect across the whole planet must stop runaway warming.”

When asked whether we might now be in danger of something similar today, Mike was reassuring. “No, there’s no chance of it happening right now. The rapid warming only follows a long period of cooling such as the 10s of thousands of years of ice-age. During this period, the earth’s crust cools and contracts and the crustal plates pull away from each in the middle of the oceans where cracks form. These cracks are filled by magma oozing up from under the crust. This continues until the solar orbit triggers a new phase of warming. But then, when the crust heats up and expands, it cannot move back because of the new crust. So each ice-age the crust creeps forward bit by bit. The result of all the ice-ages is for the crust to creep forward a bit each time, moving a bit like some caterpillars. That’s why I have nicknamed it the “Caterpillar effect”.

Notes:

  • Polar Ice-cores show around an 8C warming between the ice-age and warm interglacial periods such as the present time
  • An 8C warming, will cause a couple of km of expansion along the 40,000km circumference of the earth
  • It takes around 15,000 years for changes at the surface to penetrate a km down. For comparison, the annual change of temperature penetrates a few meters into the ground.
  • There is evidence for the modulation of mid-oceanic crust formation in Maya Tolstoy (2015)
  • There is evidence for a massive rise in volcanic activity as we enter the interglacial in Lund et al (2016)
  • For more details see: The Caterpillar Effect: Now with second confirmation it must be rock solid science
    http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2017/02/03/the-caterpillar-effect-now-with-second-confirmation-it-must-be-rock-solid-science/

ENDS

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

#NOAAgate: US committee on Science & tech: Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (‘the Karl study’). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used ‘to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.’

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): ‘I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

‘Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.’

Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.): ‘I applaud Dr. Bates’s efforts in uncovering the truth of this data manipulation, and I commend Chairman Smith and the Science Committee for conducting rigorous oversight on behalf of the American people. Transparent and faithful execution of the scientific process, especially where taxpayer dollars are involved, is crucial to ensure that our policies are based on sound science and not on politically predetermined outcomes.’

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.): ‘I commend Dr. Bates for bringing to light the corrupt practices used by his former colleagues and hope this serves as a deterrence to anyone thinking of manipulating science to serve their own political agenda. I applaud Chairman Smith and the Science Committee’s efforts to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the American people have the best information possible.’

Background

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the ‘climate change hiatus.’ The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

For a complete timeline of the Science Committee’s oversight of NOAA’s 2015 climate change study, click here.

Source: US Committee on Science, Space & Technology: Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

(Note: I’m not familiar with this outlet as an official source, but it looks official to me)

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Coverage and reaction to Mail’s revelation: world leaders duped by fake climate data

Add-Beginum: This #noaagate or perhaps #climategate2 is turning out to be bigger than I thought. Like #climategate it is starting with the blogs, and the establishment media is taking it’s time. But given the speed with which all climate blogs and some blogs I’ve never seen have taken this up, I cannot believe it won’t go big in the press.

I think I was the first to start using the term “the pause” and was certainly instrumental in popularising it on the blogs … so as my “baby”, I naturally felt a little aggrieved when the pause deniers tried to squash it to death with their fake data. So, when a whistle-blower came forth to say there was fake data – it didn’t sound like news to me!

Of course, the pause still undeniably exists in the only credible climate data from Satellites (the rest being heavily adjusted to get rid of the pause) – but that did not stop NOAA creating fake science to try to try to justify their politically motivated obliteration of the pause from their climate records.

The story broke (again) yesterday in the Mail with the Headline:

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

Quickly followed by the climate blogs:

Official Response:

US Committee on Science, Space & Technology: Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Press:

Other Blogs/Forums (just a selection as far far too many to list)

Videos:

And reaction from fake science blogs:

Comment

I’ve always assumed the reason Senator Lamar Smith and the US committee on science pursued NOAA was because they had an internal whistle-blower who knew the evidence they used was fake science. But as we know, their subpoena whilst entirely proper and legal was not complied with by NOAA. Thus NOAA was acting in clear contravention to the law and the US constitution by not complying with a legal request from their oversight committee. The only problem was the committee need Obama to enforce the law – and for political reasons given the Democrat position, he would not.

So, following Trumps inauguration, I thought the new Trump appointed head of NOAA would force compliance and therefore Lamar Smith would come straight back, reopen the NOAA investigation bringing forth his star witness and the fake science data.

So, I was surprised last week to see that this week Lamar’s gunning for the EPA. Now however, we see … probably because there’s just so much corruption to root out … that the NOAA whistle-blower has come out publicly ahead of Lamar’s investigation.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment