JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data

by Judith Curry

My op-ed in Fox News:  Is government tinkering with global warming data?

A copy of the text that I originally submitted is appended in full below:

The politics surrounding global temperature data

The hottest topic in climate research is the observation that global average surface temperature, as well as satellite observations of temperatures in the atmosphere, has shown little or no warming during the 21st century.  Now the political climate is heating up over the same issue: is 21st century global warming proceeding more slowly than previously predicted, or not?

The early 21st century slowdown in global warming, often referred to as the warming ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause,’ was unexpected — the 2007 assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a rate of warming of 0.2oC per decade in the early part of the 21st century. Scientists are producing some fascinating research on natural climate variability on decadal time scales as they search for an explanation for this unexpected slowdown in warming.

Last summer, a team of government scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), led by Thomas Karl, published a paper in Science titled “Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus.”   The press release from NOAA included this statement from Karl: “Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends.” Media headlines touted the conclusion that science now shows that the recent hiatus in warming never existed.

Scientists on both sides of the climate debate have been critical of Karl’s paper and the adjustments made to temperature in the new data set, particularly the ocean data analysis. Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen and Chip Knappenberger criticized the analysis, stating that adjusting the reliable ocean surface buoy data upwards to match the much less reliable data from engine intake channels in ships introduces an artificial upward trend in the data because the buoy network has become increasingly dense in the last two decades. A recent paper by Nieves and collaborators use NOAA’s other ocean surface temperature data set (OISST) – determined from global satellite observations and the global ocean surface buoy network – and found that the global average ocean surface temperature has been rising since 2003 at a rate of 0.01oC per decade, which is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the rate of increase reported in Karl’s paper. IPCC lead author Gerald Meehl stated: “In this case such claims of ‘no hiatus’ are artifacts of questionable interpretation of decadal timescale variability and externally forced response – not problems with the data.

Clearly, scientists have much work to do to better understand the problems with historical ocean temperature data, adjust the biases among different types of measurements, and understand the differences among different data sets.

The hiatus is not only telling us something about the importance of natural climatic variations but also about the politicization of climate science. The surface temperature data set plays a central role in the political debate over climate change. In his State of the Union address (Jan 20, 2015), President Obama stated: “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.” This statement followed a joint press release (Jan 16, 2015) from NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and NOAA’s Thomas Karl that touted 2014 as the warmest year on record. This press release was widely criticized for failing to point out that 2014 was in a statistical tie with several other recent years. NOAA’s press release in June for Karl’s paper on the hiatus was issued just before EPA was getting ready to issue its Clean Power Plan. And the politics are heating up with the approach of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris in December.

Last month, the House Science Committee, chaired by Lamar Smith (R-Texas), subpoenaed NOAA for data and communications relating to Karl’s article.  However, NOAA is refusing to give Rep. Smith the documents, citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex) called the requesta serious misuse of Congressional oversight powers.”

So, is the subpoena harassment or appropriate constitutional oversight? There are two legitimate concerns that the subpoena is responding to. The first is a data quality issue, which needs to be resolved owing to the central role that this data set is playing in U.S. climate policy. The second issue is arguably more worrisome and difficult to uncover, related to a potential alliance between NOAA scientists and Obama administration officials that is biasing and spinning climate science to support a political agenda. Rep. Smith stated: “The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.” An editorial at Investors Business Daily put it this way: “Taxpayers pay for this research, which is being used to justify massive new federal spending and regulation. They deserve to know what NOAA and other federal agencies are doing — and whether they’re being honest or serving an unspoken extreme political agenda.

The House Committee’s investigation may provide insight into the following questions. To what extent did internal discussions occur regarding some of the more questionable choices made in adjusting the ocean temperature data? Was any concern raised about the discrepancies of the new ocean temperature data set and NOAA’s other ocean temperature data set (OISST) that shows no warming since 2003? Were any Obama administration officials communicating with NOAA about these statements prior to issuing these press releases? Was the release of the land and ocean temperature data sets, which were documented in papers previously published, delayed to follow Karl’s June press release?

Earlier this year, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) initiated in investigation into possible industry funding of scientists (including myself) that had recently provided Congressional testimony for the Republicans. While potentially undisclosed industrial funding of research is a legitimate concern, climate science research funding from government is many orders of magnitude larger than industrial funding of climate research. If the House Science Committee can work to minimize the political influence on government-funded research, it will have done both science and the policies that depend on science a big favor.

Science Mag

An article today in Science provides the latest news on conflict between NOAA and the House Science Committee:  House science panel demands more NOAA documents on Science paper.

American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society has sent a letter to Rep. Smith, arstechnica has an article Meteorologists defend NOAA; Congressman repeats allegations of fraud.  The full text of the AMS letter is [here]:

Dear Chairman Smith:

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has a long history of supporting free and open access to the data and methodologies used to conduct scientific research. Indeed, reporting on research results fully and transparently through the peer-reviewed literature and providing the capability for other scientists to replicate that research to either confirm or refute those findings is a fundamental foundation of the scientific process. The AMS is concerned, however, with your recent subpoena of NOAA seeking a wide range of internal documents and correspondence related to a specific set of climate research results that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges. As expressed in the AMS Statement on Freedom of Scientific Expression:

The ability of scientists to present their findings to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative.

NOAA has stated, unambiguously, that all data and methodologies used for this research are freely available. The demand for internal communications associated with their research places a burden on NOAA scientists, imposes a chilling effect on future communication among scientists, and potentially disrupts NOAA’s critical efforts to protect life and property. NOAA and other Federal agencies employ world-class scientists who seek knowledge and understanding with commitment and dedication. The advancement of science depends on investigators having the freedom to carry out research objectively and without the fear of threats or intimidation whether or not their results are expedient or popular.

The challenge arises most sharply when the science reported in high-quality journals is directly applicable to current and ongoing social, economic, and political issues. Quoting again from the same AMS Statement:

These principles matter most — and at the same time are most vulnerable to violation — precisely when science has its greatest bearing on society. Earth sciences and their applications have growing implications for public health and safety, economic development, protection of the environment and ecosystems, and national security. Thus, scientists, policy makers, and their supporting institutions share a special responsibility at this time for guarding and promoting the freedom of responsible scientific expression.

We encourage you and the Committee to help promote scientific advancement and to welcome the self-correcting nature of the peer-review process within the international scientific community. That is best accomplished by applauding the open access to data and methodologies that NOAA consistently achieves and supporting the vetting of NOAA research through the peer-reviewed literature.

Sincerely,

Dr. Keith L. Seitter AMS Executive Director

Rep. Lamar Smith’s response

Rep. Smith’s response to the Administrator of NOAA, Kathryn Sullivan [link]:

Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Kathryn Sullivan responding to the agency’s unjustified refusal to provide the Committee with documents related to the agency’s decision to alter historical climate data. After three letters requesting these documents, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena on October 13th to obtain communications related to NOAA’s decision.

“To date, you have neither produced all documents responsive to the subpoena, nor invoked a valid legal privilege to justify withholding them,” Chairman Smith wrote. “Your failure to comply with the Committee’s subpoena has delayed the Committee’s investigation and thwarted the Committee’s constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, your failure to comply with a duly issued subpoena may expose you to civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms.”

Although NOAA failed to provide the Committee with any justification for withholding documents, a NOAA spokeswoman was quoted in the media saying that the agency’s “internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.” As such, NOAA reportedly does not intend to provide the Committee with communications.

In his letter, Smith wrote: “Contrary to NOAA’s public comments, it is not the position of NOAA to determine what is, or is not, responsive to the Committee’s investigation or whether certain communications are confidential.

“NOAA has failed to fully explain the conditions surrounding its process and procedures for adjusting upward temperature readings that eliminated the ‘pause’ in global warming. Deficiencies in NOAA’s response to the Committee’s request raises serious concerns about what role officials at NOAA, including political appointees, had in the decision to adjust the temperature data and widely publicize conclusions based on those adjustments.”

The letter demands NOAA provide all of the documents covered under the subpoena by Friday November 6 and also requests that NOAA make several employees available for transcribed interviews with the Committee.

JC reflections

Keith Seitter of the AMS has written a good letter, but it misses the mark. About a third of the AMS membership is NOAA employees, and the AMS rightly stands up for freedom of scientific inquiry and public communication by scientists.  However, the issue is not the rank and file government researchers, but rather the actions of the higher echelons of NOAA/NCEI management (notably Tom Karl).  And further, it is quite a stretch to argue that this argument with a climate data center  potentially disrupts NOAA’s critical efforts to protect life and property.

Researchers employed in government labs have different responsibilities to the federal government than do researchers employed at universities, so there isn’t really any symmetry here with the Grijalva 7 request (related to trying to smoke out fossil fuel funding of university scientists testifying for the Republicans).  Grijalva’s request was a politically motivated fishing expedition.

Smith’s request has a very different context:  concern about the quality of a specific data set of great policy relevance that was touted by NOAA in a big press release; and concern that Karl in particular has been playing politics with NOAA data.

I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one.

The politicization of climate science has gotten extreme.  I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation, but Congressional oversight and investigation into what is going on in government labs does not seem inappropriate under these circumstances.

It’s a sad state of affairs that climate science has come to this.

381 responses to “JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data

  1. Really? You say this:

    “The politicization of climate science has gotten extreme. I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation, </blockquote?

    And then you say this?:

    “but Congressional oversight and investigation into what is going on in government labs does not seem inappropriate under these circumstances.”

    And this is after post after post self-victimizing about McCarthyist efforts to “silence” and persecute “skeptics.”

    Judith, you say that you aren’t engaged at a political level, and you support a direct intervention of a politician to investigate the work of scientists?

    Remarkable.

    • Yawn. I have been very explicit in stating that I engage in the policy process, without advocating for any specific climate policies. I do advocate for the integrity of climate research, and I have heard enough to be concerned about what is going on in this situation, which is reflected in the questions in the latter part of my op-ed.

    • Judith –

      You support a politician launching an investigation into scientists’ work after saying you are concerned about the politicization of the science and that you “don’t know where to start to ameliorate the politicization. It’s really quite remarkable.

      You, yourself, once said that you don’t write Op-eds because doing so is an overtly political act.

      As for your not advocating for specific policies, sorry, that looks like a distinction without a difference to me. In the real world, your advocacy translates both into supporting specific policies (i.e., existing energy policies) and being against other specific policies (i.e.,subsidies for renewables). IMO, you can’t be as active as you are in the political wrangling and then say that you aren’t engaged in the outcomes of that political wrangling. I get that it all adds up for you, but honestly, I find it increasingly remarkable that you try to maintain that line of argumentation even as you become increasingly more politically engaged. You’ve made up your own pretzel-twisting definition of advocacy so you can conveniently exclude your own work from the criticisms that you levy against others.

      And once again, I think you have every right to advocate as you wish. Advocacy is a right and an important contributing component to your democratic governing processes. it’s just amusing how you don’t look for your own blind spots.

      • Joshua, I have been writing op-eds since 2007

      • Judith

        It would be very interesting to see your 2007 op ed so we can observe your evolution from the certainty monster to the uncertainty monster.

        Tonyb

      • It’s that politician’s job and prerogative to investigate the work of the NOAA government workers, little dude. If the government workers at NOAA don’t like Congressional oversight, they should work elsewhere.

      • My bad, Judith –

        You didn’t make a blanket statement that you don’t write op-eds.

        You did, however, state that writing an op-ed is a political act.

        curryja | August 4, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
        I was invited to write a muller/best related op-ed, not by NYT but one of approx the same impact factor. I decided not to, writing an op-ed is a political act, and I don’t really want to go there, particularly over this issue.

        Interesting, no? So first you say that writing op-eds is a political act, and then you decry the politicization of the science, and then you step up to write a series of op-eds, in the latest to discuss how you don’t know how to ameliorate the politicization, but to support a politician’s investigation of scientists’ work.

        Like I said, that is pretty remarkable.

      • What i have said is that I don’t advocate for specific climate change policies. This op ed is not about specific climate change policies, but rather concerns about the politicization of science in government labs that are run by political appointees.

      • ==> “It’s that politician’s job and prerogative to investigate the work of the NOAA government workers,…”

        It’s a politicians job to appeal to political expediency to collect votes. One way they can do that is by channeling public tax money for political investigations (BENGHAZI!!!!1!1 anyone, remember when Republicans were upset when attorneys general didn’t want to waste tax money investigating voter fraud when there wasn’t any evidence of any)?

        Whatever, it’s downright amusing to see Judith supporting political investigations of scientists* as she decries the politicization of science and laments that she doesn’t know how to ameliorate the politicization, doncha think, Don?

        *after weeks of hand-wringing about the McCarthyism of politicians investigating scientists.

      • Stop whining and get back to your cell in moderation. Why Judith is so easy on you, we will never know.

      • Zzzzzzzzz . . .

      • Here’s what makes this even better.

        Typically, I’ll head over to Climate Etc. to get my daily dose of government bashing – with hatin’ on politicians, ’cause they’re selfish and untrustworthy, hatin’ on government spending, and big time 24/7 hatin’ on the government influence on climate research. You know the drill: Climate scientists come to the conclusions they come to because they’re doing the biding of politicians, who only want science that serves their own interests. How many (tens of?) thousands of times have we all read that line of reasoning?

        But today, I come over to find some serious love for Mr. Smith, who’s spending him some tax dollars in order to steer the science of climate more towards what he, as a freakin’ politician, thinks is the more valid interpretation of the evidence.

        A work of art and a thing of beauty.

      • “… who’s spending him some tax dollars in order to steer the science of climate more towards what he, as a freakin’ politician, thinks is the more valid interpretation of the evidence.”

        Err, no he’s not. He’s asking for justification for the changes that were made. He believes it may have been politically influenced, and is asking for emails that may shed some light on that aspect.
        He asked nicely, and was told “get lost”.
        So now he’s applying legal pressure, as his his right and duty.
        Even you, Joshua, would have to admit that the boss being blown off by the employees on a request he has every right to expect to be answered, has a right and duty to start making demands instead of requests.
        I know it’s a “Mommy, mommy” moment, but they (NOAA) really did start it this time – if they are squeaky-clean and all above board, why go to the trouble of hiding anything? Doesn’t make sense to me. If ’twas me, and I thought it was all above board, I’d hand it over at the request and make quite plain that I was offended that anyone could think I was being anything other than honest and forthright.

      • Ironic that a guy who couldn’t find this own ass with both hands tied behind his back talks about blind spots.

        Still Josh shows his chops as a clown school valedictorian.

      • kneel –

        My point of interest is the illogic and double-standards.

        ==> “err, no he’s not…”

        Of course he is..He’s a politician. This is a political act – just at the RICO was and the request for Judih’s emails. It’s a political act by a non-expert who’s accepting specific expertise and rejecting other expertise in line with his ideological orientation.

        ==> “He’s asking for justification for the changes that were made”

        As if he could evaluate the scientific justifications?’ He’s relying on one set of experts, and rejecting the expertise of another set, and will continue to do so. Do you think that there is seriously any possibility that he will get the records and then, after investigating, come out and say “Sorry folks, I was wrong, the methodology was legit and there really has been no pause?”

        He’s already made up his mind about the justifications, just as have so many “skeptics” when they talk about fraudulent adjustments to the temp records.

        ==> “He believes it may have been politically influenced, and is asking for emails that may shed some light on that aspect.”

        He’s looking to discredit the scientific analysis of those scientists who say there has been no pause, because he believes that there has been a pause.

        ==> “… if they are squeaky-clean and all above board, why go to the trouble of hiding anything? Doesn’t make sense to me. If ’twas me, and I thought it was all above board, I’d hand it over at the request and make quite plain that I was offended that anyone could think I was being anything other than honest and forthright.?”

        This is precisely the argument that “skepics” have filled comment thread after comment thread in the “skept-o-sphere” rejecting. Is this the advice you gave to Judith when her emails were requested? Is that what you recommend as the procedure for dealing with the calls for the RICO investigation?

      • You support a politician launching an investigation into scientists’ work

        Joshie, what you’re doing here is called projection. It’s a psychological mechanism whereby you ascribe to others actions and motives that are actually your own.

      • Joshua you do this every time. Judith has been consistent about the one area of advocacy she engages in: scientific integrity.

        This issue is CLEARLY an issue of scientific integrity and it would be inconsistent of her not to engage with it. Furthermore, she has always stated her that her interest was particularly at the “science policy interface”. This could not be a more extreme example of this.

        You are conflating this form of narrow advocacy with politicisation. It would not matter to her if the request came from a democrat or a republican, or someone from the Monster Raving Loony party for that matter. The point is there is a clear implication that scientific integrity has been undermined by political expediency.

        The best you can possibly say, is that somehow that “advocacy” is itself a matter of policy and therefore “political”. But what political affiliation explicitly disagrees with principle of “scientific integrity” for her to be set against politically?

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Joshua,
      Here, Judith is not on the side of “silencing” and “persecuting”.
      She is seeking more disclosure of material, not silencing.
      Also, the there is claimed NOAA immunity from oversight by the Congressional Committee, who else can fill this necessary function? All of us who are paid have to answer to the source of funding.

  2. “ Part of my problem with the whole process is, that it seems that the cleaner we make our energy generation capability… now we want to come up against an obstacle that nothing can come out of those pipes, we have already taken out the VOX, the NOX, the SOX, the POX, the TOX. Now it is the carbon dioxide and water that are coming out of those smokestacks that has to be stopped.” (Michael Burgess, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 109th Congress Hearings, Second Session, July 2006)

    • They are opposed to fossil fuel burning in general and coal burning in particular. If coal burning had zero emissions they would still oppose it.

      Can’t explain it. Something about windmills and black glass fascinates global warmers.

      • @PA: They are opposed to fossil fuel burning in general and coal burning in particular. If coal burning had zero emissions they would still oppose it.

        Eminently quotable, PA. You ok with being quoted on it?

      • Go for it – you can even claim authorship with my blessing.

      • They hate everything about free enterprise capitalism. Coal represents the industrial revolution and the economic lifting of the common man. Socialism/marxism/communism has never been very attractive to people whose lives are getting better and better.

        The nonsensical opposition to Keystone is a great example. The dumber the argument, the more vocal and committed they get.

      • Classical Marxism can be blamed for many things, but not appreciating technology and industry is not one of them. Reread the Communist Manifesto for some pretty high-flown rhetoric about the wonders unleashed by bourgeois industrialism. It is true that generic anti-capitalism ideologues of all stripes, including latter-day Marxians, often reach for anti-industrial romanticism, but it is also true that a lot of wind/solar promoters purport to be pro-free-enterprise.

  3. Professor Curry,

    Your op-ed is one of the most courageous acts by a climate scientists (in their professional capacity) in many years, imo.

    As for the subpoena, I suspect a judge will laugh at NOAA’s claim of an exemption from Congressional oversight to protect “the integrity of the scientific process.” If executive agencies can make up such reasons to block the supervisory authority of Congress, it would be a large tweak to the Constitution.

    • I wish you were right, but I fear the climate debate will continue until a major solar eruption wipes out the communications and electrical power grid.

    • Dr. Curry is showing the leadership that one would expect from an ex-high priestess.

      It is nice to have someone in the middle ground defending objective science.

      As far as NOAA is concerned:
      The position of these civil servants is that they are civil masters and may dictate to congress. This sort of insubordination, is generally firing offense in the private sector .

      Congress pays their salaries and should downsize the budget of the affected agencies to show their displeasure.

      To someone living in the DC area it is abundantly clear that many of the bureaucrats are too big for their britches.

      • @PA: The position of these civil servants is that they are civil masters and may dictate to congress

        Fascinating theory: the innumerate are better qualified to dictate to the numerate.

        Wish I were that creative theory-wise.

      • What are you talking about, doc? PA didn’t say anything about numerate and innumrerate. He is talking about the federal gubmint employees at the NOAA defying the committee of the U.S. Congress that has oversight responsibility for the NOAA. Do you think that gubmint sighintists are exempt from Congressional oversight?

      • VP
        This is not about the intellectually elite vs the dolts. The conflict could just as well involve some Department of Transportation workers who pour concrete. Are the bureaucrats running the show or the representatives of the people?

        Please tell me you didn’t sleep through 5th grade civics class.

      • Vaughn forces the general to the particular and ironically exposes a flaw of technocracy.
        =============

      • Sorry about that comment, it was uncalled for. Consider it withdrawn.

    • “I suspect a judge will laugh at NOAA’s claim of an exemption from Congressional oversight to protect ‘the integrity of the scientific process.’”

      Unfortunately, a judge will never hear the argument. Congress has no authority to enforce its own subpoenas. All they can do is refer potential contempt charges to the DOJ. That would be the Barack Obama/Eric Holder DOJ; the most politicized Justice Department in the nation’s history.

      Not going to happen.

    • Large tweaks to the Constitution are becoming common place in this adminstration. Even some extreme left-wing law professors have begun voicing concerns that the Constitution is being shredded. See e.g. Turley or Tribe.

      The NOAA argument is nothing more than giving the finger to Congress. I would guess they think that Obama or an activist Judge can help them tough it out long enough for them to finish crashing all the relevant computers per the IRS procedure. I am sure they are coordinating the response with the White House.

  4. Excellent post. I agree, the Seitter letter misses the mark completely.

    This seems to be a perfect opportunity to either confirm or debunk the notion that the politicians/bureaucrats are playing an outsized role in driving both government and government funded scientists to come up with the answers they want.

    Based on your “behind the scenes” comment, it looks like we can make a pretty good guess at what the Administrators/bureaucrats are afraid of.

    I applaud Rep. Smith for his diligence in pursuing this investigation.

  5. NOAA’s efforts to debunk the hiatus are as political as they come. The administrative adjustments to the data sets have reached absurd levels as the growing divergence between GISS and RSS trends clearly shows. Congress has every right to delve into the mechanics of these changes. They are the people’s representatives and NOAA is publicly funded.

    • It is simpler than that:

      The adjustments to historic data since 2008 are prima facia evidence of bias and dishonesty.

      The agencies should be given one and only one chance to show the raw data changed enough since 2008 to justified the adjustments to the historic record.

      To stop the abuse of historic data:
      1. The engineering societies, mostly the IEEE and ASME, should to funded to produce a standard for processing of pre-2015 climate data, the algorithms, the exception handling, data set merges etc.

      2. A private contractor should be funded to create the historic temperature record as specified by the standard.

      3. If there is any variation in the historic record as reported the contractor shall be fired and replaced with a new contractor.

      4. The funding for maintaining other US and Global Climate records by US agencies shall be terminated.

      5. A new climate measurement system that only has stations at pristine sites away from urban/rural areas shall be established. The sensor performance shall conform to an engineering standard. This shall be the climate network of record. Adjustments to the reported data or replacement of sensors with non-standard devices shall be a felony.

      There you go. No UHI going forward, Dead data going backwards. Problem solved.

  6. Judith,
    So, Smith says this

    “The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”

    which just illustrates that he has no clue how science is done, and you say

    I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one.

    Well, I hope that there are some skeletons in the closet, because based on what’s in the public domain there is no scientific reason for supporting Smith – IMO.

    • The scientific issue is simple: NOAA made a colossally bad judgement in adjusting the accurate surface buoy data to the wildly inaccurate ship data. Because buoy coverage has increased over time, this adjustment adds a spurious temperature increase. There are other adjustment choices that are being criticized/scrutinized as well.

      Further, NCEI’s ocean surface temperature analysis disagrees substantially with NOAA’s other SST data set (OISST), using satellite data and the buoys. Stay tuned for a post on this early next week.

      • Judith,

        The scientific issue is simple: NOAA made a colossally bad judgement in adjusting the accurate surface buoy data to the wildly inaccurate ship data.

        Maybe so, but this doesn’t require their emails. It simply requires doing is again. This is obvious, isn’t it? Even making a “collossally bad judgement” does not justify a congressional witch hunt. You also seem to know what they did wrong, so why do you need more?

      • In my experience, people with very strong views will often refuse to admit they’re wrong, even after being presented with irrefutable proof.

      • Yes, I agree. You don’t have to convince them, though. You have to convince everyone else.

      • ATTP writes

        “Maybe so, but this doesn’t require their emails.”

        Access to the e-mails could help determine if the cause of the adjustments were to promote a specific agenda. That is very relevant to public policy.

      • Anyone who has read the Climategate emails readily understands the reasons why the potential NOAAgate emails are necessary to obtain.

      • ATTP, that could be difficult if they’re the one that everyone else regards as an authority.

      • The emails to and from Miriam O’Brian may be very amusing.
        ==================

      • I have a question. Just because the difference, messy as it might be, between the buoys and ship readings is now 0.12 C (I believe it was), how do you know that difference was constant before the buoys?

      • Maybe so, but this doesn’t require their emails. It simply requires doing is again. This is obvious, isn’t it? Even making a “collossally bad judgement” does not justify a congressional witch hunt. You also seem to know what they did wrong, so why do you need more?

        When they make a “collossally bad judgement” that for sure does justify a congressional witch hunt. We elect congress to keep people honest. These are supposed to be intelligent, educated, scientists. For them to use “collossally bad judgement” is a red flag that they did this for reasons that result from political reasons that have nothing to do with honest science.

    • Do you really hope there are some skeletons in the closet or are you just being disingenuous?

      • Hmm, I thought it was obvious. If Judith is going to side with Smith on the basis of what she heard behind the scenes, then I hope that’s because there is a good deal more behind the scenes than is known publicly. Publicly this appears to be an appalling witchhunt on the basis of someone publishing a paper with results that are inconvenient to the narrative some would like to promote. If there is little more behind the scenes than is known publicly, then Judith supporting Smith while stating

        The politicization of climate science has gotten extreme. I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation

        would seem rather ironic. One way to ameliorate the politicization of climate science would be to not support congressionaly witchhunts.

      • “Publicly this appears to be an appalling witchhunt on the basis of someone publishing a paper with results that are inconvenient to the narrative some would like to promote.”

        This is not the same. It is not an individual, it is a Federal agency. If an Agency product cherry picks an analysis to get a convenient result for the Administration to promote their agenda, then any Agency loses credibility. If there was communication between the Administration and the Agency promoting the idea to produce such a result, then it is much worse.

        Unfortunately this Administration has been guilty of clouding the transparency of government in unprecedented ways so I too think that this request is warranted.

      • Hmmm, disingenuous it is.

      • Disingenuous or unaware. I tracked this and posted previously. There is at least one buried skeleton here. Karl relies on a separate contemporaneous paper, Huang’s adjustment of SST using the method of Kennedy 2011. Huang got the same adjustment result, 0.1C. BUT DID NOT report the uncertainty. Kennedy did — 0.1C +/- 1.7C. Statistical junk. Both Huang and Karl are arguably scientific misconduct. Both NOAA papers. Rep. Smith is onto something big.

      • BUT DID NOT report the uncertainty. Kennedy did — 0.1C +/- 1.7C. Statistical junk. Both Huang and Karl are arguably scientific misconduct. Both NOAA papers. Rep. Smith is onto something big.

      • Point one plus or minus one point seven? It’s dead, Ken.
        =====================

      • ristvan | November 5, 2015 at 4:35 pm |
        Disingenuous or unaware. I tracked this and posted previously. There is at least one buried skeleton here. Karl relies on a separate contemporaneous paper, Huang’s adjustment of SST using the method of Kennedy 2011. Huang got the same adjustment result, 0.1C. BUT DID NOT report the uncertainty. Kennedy did — 0.1C +/- 1.7C. Statistical junk. Both Huang and Karl are arguably scientific misconduct. Both NOAA papers. Rep. Smith is onto something big.

        If the ship readings are +/- 1.7C error range…

        Error bounds 17 times the adjustment? Really?

        Ummm, why do we even care about adjustment.. What gets accomplished by moving a 3.4°C error range up and down 0.1°C? Claiming this improves accuracy is a juvenile fantasy.

        Perhaps by law we should require these charts be drawn with the uncertainty included.

        Is the current temperature even above the uncertainty range for the 1940s? Do we actually know that we are warmer than the 40s?

      • It’s worse than dead, Kim.

      • Rud, this uncertainty is not the uncertainty in the final results. You cannot cite the uncertainty in a single location as though it is the uncertainty of the final result. That’s just wrong. Please stop doing it. – Brandon Shollenberger

    • Curious George

      “He has no clue how science is done.” We have data that are not scary enough to provoke an immediate and expensive (and lucrative) action, so we create new adjusted data that is clearly better for our purpose. Is this how science is done?

    • The Congressional committee with oversight responsibility for the NOAA is not investigating the science, kenny. They suspect political motive in the act of Karl eat all making convenient pre-Paris adjustments that other teams of researchers with access to the same data have chosen not to make. It’s their prerogative, kenny. Get over it.

    • and Then There’s Physics: which just illustrates that he has no clue how science is done, …

      Not so. It illustrates that he has a suspicion that science may have been “done” in a biased manner in this instance; and the emails may reveal the bias. The CRU emails reveal that private communications may be discrepant from public communications.

      Why not just do it all over again? Well, first these scientists were on the public payroll, and the quality of their work is a legitimate concern. Secondly, corrections encounter more opposition than the published precursors and may be ignored.

    • For your students sake Ken I hope your dishonest style is kept out of the classroom.

      The difference that comes through reading comments from you, a professor in a field of physics and Robert Brown, also a professor in a field of physics, is startling.

      Don’t be a dishonest puts Ken. If you truly need a religion to live by, look for one that is less easily falsified.

  7. “It’s a sad state of affairs that climate science has come to this.”

    Yes, it’s sad, but this state of affairs is not just in climate science.

    The Obama administration was elected by promising to be “the most open, ethical, transparent administration in history.”

    The reality is that Politically Correct Progressives throughout the bureaucracies are empowered to bend, twist, shred and break laws regarding open records, Freedom of Information, Congressional oversight, and many more requirements for transparency.

    This administration, empowered from the top, and from within, has attacked political enemies with a vengeance. Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” seems like a pre-school snit compared to Obama/Hillary/Holder’s actions against their enemies, and their cover-ups of their actions.

    Massive and unprecedented violations have occurred in the Justice Department, the IRS, the EPA, NASA, NOAA, State, CIA, the Pentagon, Education, Social Security, HHS, the White House, and many, many others.

    So, don’t feel like climate science is experiencing something special. NOAA’s refusal to follow the law is just another in the growing list of crimes and misdemeanors committed by this band of zealots.

  8. There is no basis for such an exemption claim. Even FOIA would require release of the internal discussions much less a request from Congress.

    FOIA exemptions;

    5 United States Code § 552

    (b) This section does not apply to matters that are—

    (1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; [this is the classified material exemption]

    (2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; [this exemption has been construed to permit withholding of information the disclosure of which would risk circumvention of a legal requirement, including materials that relate to critical infrastructure. See the FOIA Post that was distributed at the last working group meeting.]

    (3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other that section 552b of this title), [the Privacy Act] provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

    (4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

    (5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; [the courts have construed this exemption to apply only to documents that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context]

    (6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; [does not apply to a requester seeking information pertaining only to himself or herself]

    (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or to an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; [the law enforcement exemption]

    (8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or,

    (9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

    Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information shall be indicated at the place in the record where the deletion is made.

    Scott

    • Yes. Rep Smith’s subpoena is lawful since his committee has scince oversight. And by using a subpoena rather than FOIA for the identical specific information, noncompliance becomes contempt of congress under 2USC192.

      • It would be better if a number of people also filed FOIA requests. FOIA is sometimes more effective than a Congressional subpoena as several current scandals have demonstrated.

  9. I’m kind of the opinion, born out of ignorance, that Karl may well have had good reason to smooth the pause or whatever the adjusted data resulted in. What I don’t know, and perhaps only he knows, is what was done to the ocean data. If they are compelled to release the data, I would think it would end up much like Best, in other words, having to explain why adjustments were made. Since they are a government institution it would be far more important what the explanation was vs Best adjusting anything and explaining it.

    • Wasn’t all the data already released before the committee asked for it.

      • I don’t know? I thought it was too.

      • Yeah: “NOAA has stated, unambiguously, that all data and methodologies used for this research are freely available.”

        I don’t know what more they could want other than an explanation. If it turned out anything like Nick Stokes trying to explain Best on this blog well it would seem like a useless food fight to me.

      • Well, it’s always possible the emails could cause few divorces, etc.

        The National Congressional Inquirer… available at grocery checkout counters in your suburb.

    • O, Karl relied on Huang’s SST paper. And it expressly used the method pf Kennedy 2011. Neither Karl nor Huang reported the uncertainty in that method. But Kennedy did — 0.1C +/- 1.7C. Smith’s committee knows it got hidden, and the result is junk. I not only postd this sleuthing here previously, I wrote Smith’s committee about it. There may be more, but there is at least this. Bad science is bad science, and this will become a clear example.

      • Rud, this uncertainty is not the uncertainty in the final results. You cannot cite the uncertainty in a single location as though it is the uncertainty of the final result. That’s just wrong. Please stop doing it.

    • You people don’t get it. The elected representatives of the people suspect political motivation in the NOAA erasure of the pause. You know, the pause that is killing the cause. They are investigating, as is their responsibility and prerogative. They are allowed to go on fishing expeditions. It’s done all the time.

      Look for a lot of footdragging and stonewalling from the NOAA, in a losing legal battle to keep witnesses from appearing and to avoid turning over the communications sought by the committee. Then an epidemic of crashed hard drives and witnesses taking the fifth. Of course if this goes on until Trump is in the White House, the NOAA miscreants will be cited for contempt of Congress and the Trump DOJ will jail them.

      • Well, I do get it, I just don’t know how useful it will be other than political fodder. There will be a lot of finger pointing and then even if something is uncovered, like Hillary and Benghazi, it just ends up being glossed over. If it were Nixon well that would be a different story.

      • As a Brit I find this completely mystifying

        We have a parliamentary energy and climate change committee

        http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/

        If it was suspected that the MET office had been tampering with their data dame Julia Slingo , the head of the MET office would be asked to appear before it and give evidence. If they asked her to supply back up information such as emails or spread sheets she would do so.

        I can not understand how a govt dept in the US can defy a congressional committee and refuse to supply what is requested. Such committees will tend to have political biases, hardly surprising as they are likely to be dominated by members of the govt of the day and will be working to their policies.

        What justification can their be for NOAA to defy a properly constituted committee of this nature?

        Tonyb

      • Tony,

        If you can’t fathom how an executive branch government bureaucrat in the US can get away with defying the Congressional committee responsible for oversight and funding her agency, then you haven’t been paying attention the last 7 years.

        This is par for the course for this administration. The IRS, State Dept, EPA, and many more do exactly the same thing.

        See some of the commenters here for the smoke screen the adminstration uses to cover their crimes: “witch hunt!” “invasion of privacy,” “meddling in science!” “McCarthy!” and more.

        Bottom line is you are spot-on. Defying Congress is illegal. As is defying FOIA requests. But they own the Dept of Justice–which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting federal crimes. Pretty neat set-up, huh?

      • tonyb
        there is no justification. They refuse to cooperate. The FOIA act exemptions I mentioned above requires them to provide the information. This is even more powerful as a legal demand subpoena . No emails by government employees belong to the individual. They and the computers are gov property. The emails I mean. They are just defying the government legislative organization that oversees the operation and funds their budget.

      • Tony:”I can not understand how a govt dept in the US can defy a congressional committee and refuse to supply what is requested.”

        In this case they can do it because Obama controls the Department of Justice. If Congress cites the NOAA rascals for contempt, the DOJ will ignore it, as they have donw with the IRS criminals. When Trump takes over, they will cough up the emails, or go to jail.

      • So, what’s Congress to do? Just about every agency is armed to the teeth if not outright militarized. Even the EPA has armed agents. What does Congress have? If push comes to shove, do the Congressmen forcibly jail someone in the Administration? How does that work?

  10. Judith, you apparently intended to link to Science but instead the URL points to Fox.

  11. I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation

    Go back to climate curiosity. Forget the field as a science and just do what interests you.

    The problem is trying to maintain climate science as a field and as respectable at the same time. Both sociology and science are against it.

    Respectability is something that comes up on its own. It can’t be an input.

  12. stevefitzpatrick

    I am shocked (Shocked!) anyone would suggest a scientist like Tom Karl could be acting based on political motivations. /sarc
    I’m betting that NOAA scientists are going to try to get Hillary elected.

    • @SF: I’m betting that NOAA scientists are going to try to get Hillary elected.

      Science has been beaten up by politics since the mists of time.

      When has politics ever triumphed over science in the long run?

      • stevefitzpatrick

        In the long run, we’re all dead. The damage done by politics masquerading as science is real and potentially very large, even if in the long run it is recognized as rubbish.

  13. A sad state of affairs, but completely predictable (see Crichton, M, State of Fear, or Eisenhower, D, Farewell Address). Humans, in science and out, are subject to influences beyond their knowledge and control. Prominent climate scientists who’ve engaged in policy have forgotten the prescription of Feynman on how to be a scientist with integrity: “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.” This of course includes the uncertainty, which seems neglected by most climate alarmists, who prefer to jack up both the level of certainty and the emotional content to gain the high impact publication and notoriety. Disgusting, and a major threat to the scientific enterprise and its support by the public. Thanks Judith!

  14. I’m afraid that releasing mails will not be the end of the story. When and If there is no smoking gun in the mails, will the request for phone logs come?
    or meeting notes, or calendars to see who met with whom on what day.

    I would suggest that NOAA just publish the same series adjusting the ships to bouys. The difference, if any, will be clear to see. It’s a matter of structural uncertainty and one that is easily addressed by the scientists.

    As an analyst when you make such a choice, it’s usually a good idea to check both ways of doing things. first if there is no difference, then your choice is of no consequence. If there is a difference, then you make your best argument for your choice, show the results making a different choice and let folks discuss the merits.

    • That is a good idea.
      Scott

      • I couldn’t bear to read all this in any depth. You’re probably all correct to within what government work requires. A couple of beers should be more than enough to drown out the tiny differences.

    • I would suggest that NOAA just publish the same series adjusting the ships to bouys.

      Given that they’ve published all their data and code, couldn’t anybody do that? Hasn’t somebody? Does the NOAA have any issues with the result?

      • yes anyone could I suppose.

        My suggestion about what they should do says NOTHING about what other people can or should do.

        Like… I’m just saying

      • Ak,

        Steven explains the best way to proceed if your objective is to expand your level of knowledge.

        That Karl et al didn’t tells you one of two things. They aren’t interested in expanding knowledge or they ate not very competent.

    • Steven,

      I agree with Scott, your suggestion is great. If the policy you recommend had been followed since the public policy debate began in (arbitrary date) in 1989, I suspect today’s situation would be much better.

      • If the policy you recommend had been followed since the public policy debate began in (arbitrary date) in 1989, I suspect today’s situation would be much better.

        Once again you seem to think that if only scientists had done something different, the situation would be much better, entirely dismissing all the other reasons why the situation isn’t as good as it could be.

      • ATTP,

        Contrafactual history is inherently impossible to prove. Hence I stated my belief as “I suspect”.

        “dismissing all the other reasons why the situation isn’t as good as it could be.”

        Yes, historical analysis often suggests that changing one factor (sometimes a small one) might have produced radically different outcomes. For some examples see The Collected What IF?, edited by Robert Cowley (1998). “Eminent Historians imagine what have been.”

        http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385

        The value of such analysis is not to spark food-fights about the unchangeable past, but extract lessons from the past that can guide our future actions.

      • The value of such analysis is not to spark food-fights about the unchangeable past, but extract lessons from the past that can guide our future actions.

        Yes, but focussing on one aspect and not the others isn’t a particularly good way to learn a lesson.

        I’ll also make a stronger point. If you really think that scientists behaving in a way that others would regard as acceptable would improve things, then you don’t understand the goal of science. The goal of science is not to produce something that others appear to trust, it’s to actually gain understanding. Car salesman and politicians want us to trust them. Scientists shouldn’t really care.

      • I agree with Scott, your suggestion is great. If the policy you recommend had been followed since the public policy debate began in (arbitrary date) in 1989, I suspect today’s situation would be much better.

        Actually, maybe I’m not quite interpreting you properly. You seem to be saying that if only scientists had done the science the way you think they should have done it, things would be better. Well, the solution to this is to become a scientist and do it the way you think it should be done, not be a layperson heckling from the sidelines.

      • ATTP:

        “Actually, maybe I’m not quite interpreting you properly.”

        Unreasonably interpreting the positions of people with views different than yours is one of your primary modes of debate. Build a straw man, knock it down. Win!

        That your assertions of other people’s views are quite daft should suggest to you that you might not understand them correctly.

        In this particular case your statement of my position is quite bizarre. Not even remotely close.

      • In this particular case your statement of my position is quite bizarre. Not even remotely close.

        Then why don’t you explain it properly. You said

        If the policy you recommend had been followed since the public policy debate began in (arbitrary date) in 1989, I suspect today’s situation would be much better.

        The policy you’re promoting is this (I assume)

        I would suggest that NOAA just publish the same series adjusting the ships to bouys.

        In other words you seem to be suggesting that they follow some kind of particular scientific strategy and then things would be better. If you think this, then become a scientist or go and talk to one and do it. Heckling the scientists from the sidelines, while ignoring all the other reasons things are not as good as they could be, does not make you appear balanced.

        Now if I have strawmanned you, you could try explaining it again. However, it’s hard not to interpret it as essentially “if only scientists did…”. Alternatively you could do what you normally do which is to pretend that you’re somehow in the middle and that the problem is people on either extreme. You could try getting off your pedestal for once, and actually give this some thought. Try not to fall, though, it’s quite high.

      • It’s not so much a policy as it is a discipline.

        One thing about this discipline is that it has a tendency to cause confusion as well as clarity. look

        we give people the raw data and adjusted data.we give them monthly data and daily data.we give 1 degree grids and 1/4 degree grids. equal area grids.. theoretically we’d have to post hundreds of datasets for each we make.. So there comes a practical limit to the number of datasets you make available. too many datasets and people ask “Which is the truth?” As if. As if. In the end there are just analyst choices and the results. you try to show the effects of your most important choices…

        That is where judgment comes into play. So, I don’t fault them for not posting that version. That’s their judgement. But given the controversy, my SUGGESTION is that they post the alternative version. Subtle diifference. I suspect when people see that the two versions dont materially differ the audit will move elsewhere!!!

        So yes I know that once they do this they will be hounded to do more, post more.

        As Willard has said the audit is never ending. never ending especially when some dont practice good faith.

        I’d post it not because its necessary but just to have fun watching people shift their focus.

      • “As Willard has said the audit is never ending. never ending especially when some dont practice good faith.” I love it, Stephen. It is off track for this discussion, but you have described exactly the modus operandi of the environmental NGO’s whenever a new mine, dam, pipeline, highway, port, etc, etc is proposed. The only things never objected to by them is wind & solar farms, who can destroy as much of the environment as they please without ever getting any stick from the NGO’s. Hyprocracy? They don’t know the meaning of the word.

      • That is where judgment comes into play. So, I don’t fault them for not posting that version. That’s their judgement. But given the controversy, my SUGGESTION is that they post the alternative version. Subtle diifference.

        Yes, and there’s nothing wrong with doing as you suggest, but there is always a judgement. They can’t do ever possible thing and the best people to decide what they should do is them. If we want them to do more, provide more funding and hire more scientists.

        I suspect when people see that the two versions dont materially differ the audit will move elsewhere!!!

        I’m sure this is exactly what will happen, which is why the “if only scientists had done….”, “If only scientists start doing….” is probably wrong. There is probably little they could have done to change the policy debate. This is not about the evidence specifically, this is about what the evidence suggests.

      • These aren’t just scientists. They are also bureaucrats involved in making regulations and providing evidence for their political superiors to further their aims. Our current regulations on allegedly carcinogenic chemicals, for example, are the result of highly politicized and scientifically problematic judgments (dubbed “regulatory science” by Edith Efron in her classic The Apocalyptics). Ditto most of our government’s nutritional pronouncements and regulations. Ditto the California air pollution regulations. To pretend that employees of regulatory agencies or those government employees participating in regulatory-relevant research are the institutional equivalent of Robert Boyle or Charles Darwin is absurd.

    • Steven Mosher:

      I would suggest that NOAA just publish the same series adjusting the ships to bouys.

      From Huang, et al. (2015):

      Although buoy SSTs are generally more homogeneous than ship SSTs, they are adjusted here because otherwise it would be necessary to adjust ship SSTs before 1980 when there were no or very few buoys. As expected, the global averaged SSTA trends between 1901 and 2012 (refer to Table 2) are the same whether buoy SSTs are adjusted to ship SSTs or the reverse. However, the global mean SST is 0.06 C warmer after 1980 in ERSST.v4 because of the buoy adjustments (not shown) and there are therefore impacts on the long-term trends compared to applying no adjustment to account for the change in observational platforms.

      • simple. Point me to the URL for the series done both ways.

        or go away.

      • Steven Mosher:

        To quote my BEST friend, “read closer”:

        As expected, the global averaged SSTA trends between 1901 and 2012 (refer to Table 2) are the same whether buoy SSTs are adjusted to ship SSTs or the reverse.

        Table 2 is found at page 920 of Huang, et al.

        Sorry I don’t have a URL to the full calculations. Life just isn’t fair.

      • You still DONT GET IT

        I know there is no difference. I argued that from DAY 1. dolt!

        I am making a different argument here

        I am Suggesting that they POST BOTH SERIES

        Not write a paragraph.. not produce a table.

        POST BOTH SERIES AND SHOW THE PEOPLE

        SHOW not TELL

        Now go away.

      • OK, maybe you’re not my BEST friend after all. We’ll talk again after your hangover gets better.

    • “I would suggest that NOAA just publish the same series adjusting the ships to bouys. The difference, if any, will be clear to see. It’s a matter of structural uncertainty and one that is easily addressed by the scientists.”

      That’s not clever, Steven. How about not making any adjustment? The issue with ship and buoy data had been known for a long time and other researchers had chosen to not make adjustments.

      • no don. not making adjustments will WARM the SST record.

        we have good evidence that ships and bouys differ by around .1C
        which is why everyone makes the adjustment.

        Even our automated approach suggested an adjustment.

      • Don,

        If you suspect the data could be adjusted to provide a picture closer to reality, then Mosher’s advice is spot on. You do it both ways and compare. Not only between each method but against the unadjusted data.

      • “no don. not making adjustments will WARM the SST record.”

        So, without the Karl ship-buoy adjustment the SST record is warmer? Got charts?

      • Here you go.

        raw versus adjusted for SST

        Raw shows higher trends

      • @Steven Mosher…

        Raw shows higher trends

        I can’t believe you and Zeke Hausfather are that stupid. You must be trying to play the readers here for fools.

        That chart you posted? The rate of rise is identical for ~1980-2000. But the unadjusted data shows a much higher rate of rise for 1910-1945, before there was enough extra CO2 to make much difference.

        The adjusted data does a much better job “proving” that increased pCO2 produces higher rates of warming.

        No wonder sensible people are suspicious.

      • The controversy is over the ersatz erasure of the pause that is killing the cause, Steven. Not a little difference in long-term trends. They will obviously give up a little something to erase the pause that is killing the cause.

        It looks to me like the chart shows the raw data is significantly cooler, during the pause that is killing the cause. And hey, that’s the time when we had relatively good measurements and coverage from the buoys. I think that chart proves that we have reason to be suspicious of Karl ate all and the NOAA. Thanks for your help.

      • It’s interesting that the adjusters didn’t seem to have much interest in adjusting between 1980 and 2000, when the trend was fairly steadily going north. When the raw data went south diverging from the programmed trajectory, they put on their little adjusting hats and goggles again.

      • “The controversy is over the ersatz erasure of the pause that is killing the cause, Steven. Not a little difference in long-term trends. They will obviously give up a little something to erase the pause that is killing the cause.

        It looks to me like the chart shows the raw data is significantly cooler, during the pause that is killing the cause. And hey, that’s the time when we had relatively good measurements and coverage from the buoys. I think that chart proves that we have reason to be suspicious of Karl ate all and the NOAA. Thanks for your help. ”

        The “pause” isnt that interesting. The long term trend is what matters.

        You seem to forget when Santer said 17 years… I said we could see a 25 year pause.

        And moreever Karl’s adjustments dampen the long term trend as well.

      • AK

        which word is giving you trouble

        temperature is a result of ALL forcing.

      • Steven Mosher,

        You seem to be in favour of long term trends. The long term trend since the seas dropped below boiling, is down, obviously. The long term doesn’t support you, by the look of it.

        Or do you prefer a short term cherry picked trend, since 1952, or 1852, or 1752 or whatever, that “proves” CO2 warms stuff? What’s the point? Do you still believe in phlogiston or caloric?

        Garbage for the gullible, nothing more, nothing less!

        Cheers.

      • “The “pause” isnt that interesting.”

        The warmists have been plenty desperate to dispose of it. The interruption of the alleged long-term trend, by the pause that is killing the cause, has had a devastating effect on their efforts to stampede the folks into drastic mitigation schemes. Paree is their last chance, according to them. They will be saying the same thing at the big climate shindig in Detroit, 2031.

        I am guessing that the adjustments on the raw data post 2000 are not an improvement. From the looks of the chart our measurement ability was really good 1980-2000, Then we lost it. Not likely.

      • don.

        the chart tells you nothing about measurement ability. zero. zip.
        What it shows is the net effect of the decisions to adjust.

        1. the LONG TERM effect ( that would influence ECS calculations)
        is “against” the cause.
        2. The short term effect…. is inconsequential since nothing much turns
        on the “pause”

        Oh ya, politics turns on the pause.. I could give a rats ass about that.

      • OK Steven, I should have said from the looks of the chart the adjusters thought our measurement ability was really good 1980-2000 (not needing adjustment), Then we lost it. Not likely. Clear now?

        Yeah, we get it about the long-term trend not changing much, the rat’s ass etc. But we can see from the chart that the serial adjustments just happen to reduce the 1910-1945 warming trend that was not due to ACO2 and warms the pause that is killing the cause.

      • OK Steven, I should have said from the looks of the chart the adjusters thought our measurement ability was really good 1980-2000 (not needing adjustment), Then we lost it. Not likely. Clear now?

        Yeah, we get it about the long-term trend not changing much, the rat’s a$$ (moderation) etc. But we can see from the chart that the serial adjustments just happen to reduce the 1910-1945 warming trend that was not due to ACO2 and warms the pause that is killing the cause.

      • @AK: But the unadjusted data shows a much higher rate of rise for 1910-1945, before there was enough extra CO2 to make much difference.

        True enough, AK. That could have been due to the AMO.

        But then there were its strong declines during 1880-1910 and 1945-1975, cancelling out that rise for 60-year climate.

        The Sun’s TSI however increased significantly during 1900-1950, with no major decline either before or after.

        That higher rate of rise during 1910-1945 is therefore more plausibly attributed to the Sun.

        In the immortal words of Amazon’s Mug Wump: it’s the Sun, stupid.

    • stevefitzpatrick

      Agreed, that is what they should have done. They didn’t. Speaks volumes about Tom Karl (no surprise Pielke Sr has been complaining about Karl for ever).

    • Agree 100%.

      That Karl didn’t tells me he is not much of a scientist from a quality standpoint. The other possibility is he is a perfectly competent scientist and was after a specific result.

    • davideisenstadt

      Mosh: the point regarding releasing emails is they are the property of NOAA…they are work product clearly covered by FOIAA, and it isn’t a matter of NOAAs discretion as to whether they can choose to releaser not release these work products to congress.
      Really, its more of a law, than a policy or discipline.
      Meeting notes, phone logs and calendars to show just who federal employees and grantees spoke or met or communicated with is and has always been grist for the mill…Bush’s energy policy, Hilliary!’s healthcare initiative 20 or so years ago…all off these resulted in attempts to discern just how decisions were being made.
      Its not really a new phenomenon.
      Of course if NOAA just complied with a congressional subpoena, this discussion wouldn’t be occurring.

  15. Discussions with NOAA employees? Sounds a lot more like Smith has been listening to a whistleblower than engaging in a fishing expedition.

    • There was a whistle blown. But using only puvlished peer reviewed papers. See my comments upthread on what and how. This is no fishing expedition, although Judith implies Smith may ‘know’ more than what I uncovered in four hours research when the Karl paper first appeared.

  16. These scientists need to get over themselves. If they are being paid with government funds, they should be transparent and show some respect for officials who were ELECTED by other citizens. If this is “chilling,” go work somewhere else.

  17. I would suggest that NOAA just publish the same series adjusting the ships to bouys. The difference, if any, will be clear to see. It’s a matter of structural uncertainty and one that is easily addressed by the scientists.

    As an analyst when you make such a choice, it’s usually a good idea to check both ways of doing things.

    This ^^^

    I’m not sure why the NOAA didn’t just publish it this way to begin with.

  18. Government corruption of science?
    Almost seems like someone could have predicted this.

  19. Whatever the merits of the Karl paper, perusing Zeke Hausfather’s comparison with Berkeley Earth , it doesn’t seem particularly controversial that Judith Curry should side with the politicians.
    In any case, the so-called pause is now history.

  20. Curry cherry picks. A useful tactic that apparently allows her to avoid all the other evidence of rapid changes in the planetary climate?

    • UR, I would be very interested in examining any of your evidence for (a) rapid climate change (weather patterns over a min of 30 years, WMO definition) because I couldn’t find any after three ebooks and 6 years of research), and more importantly, (b) any that are likely mainly anthropogenic. Please leave trivial stuff like rising Phoenix humidity due to lawn and golf course irrigation out.
      Put up or shut up. Verifiable facts only. Original sources only. With uncertainty estimates so everyone can sort the smoke from the mirrors. The pause is not a cherry pick. You start from today and calculate backwards in time to whatever endpoint result is chosen (slope, statistically significant trend, whatever).

      • Rud,

        The robot has to be programed to do as you ask. Which means he has to wait for the GI before he provides the GO.

      • “You start from today and calculate backwards in time to whatever endpoint result is chosen (slope, statistically significant trend, whatever).”

        that doesnt give you a pause.

        why should be obvious. read my numerous comments scattered about the web

      • The pause is not a cherry pick. You start from today and calculate backwards in time to whatever endpoint result is chosen (slope, statistically significant trend, whatever).

        Ummm, no, if you choose “now” as your first end-point and then work backwards in time and define a “pause” as a period where the 2 sigma uncertainty intercepts zero, then you can always find a pause if you don’t initially define your start point. It is the ultimate cherry-pick.

      • Curious George

        ATTP, I happen to live now. Please feel free to cherry pick when you live.

      • Yes, George (Curious, or not), you always live “now”. However, if you do not fix the start point, and always work back from your current “now”, the past 15 years, or so, will almost always be statistically consistent with “no trend”. I’d rather know if the “now” I’m living in “now” is warmer than the “now” I was living in before and whether or not the “now” I’ll be living in the future is likely to be warmer, or not, than the “now” I’m living in now.

  21. It’s now an official investigation; NYT: “Exxon Mobil Under Investigation in New York Over Climate Statements”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html

  22. Witch hunt? Harrasment?

    Which part of “public employee using public funds to do work for public purposes?”

    If you’ve never been a public employee, maybe you’re confused about this.

    Apparently, there are some feverish folks who’ve seen “The Crucible” a couple times too many.

    Here’s the scoop: Federal employees HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN EMAILS.

    “Government Employees and Email
    Government employees have even less privacy than the little privacy a typical employee in the private sector may have. Under various public records acts and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the public can gain access to almost anything a government employee writes down. Also, due to the nature of their job, courts are typically unwilling to find that government employees had a reasonable right to privacy in the first place.”

    THE PUBLIC has a RIGHT to government employees’ emails! And anything they write down on government time, too.

    This is why the Obama administration has made an art of using private email accounts for government business–see Hillary at State, the IRS, the EPA, and many others.

    Just because you don’t like congressional and public oversight of federal “servants” does not make the law go away!

    • You have said it best. I don’t know how anything could be more clear. Why there is so much angst is beyond me. Other than directions to the bathroom, there is nothing explained more quickly to a public employee than the rules on emails. Assume you are writing for the world to see and conduct yourself accordingly.

    • So many words and so little willingness to grasp a fundamental employment law issue.

      Your emails are your ‘work product’ (to use a US term) and they belong to your employer. Full stop. End of story. They are not confidential to you. You have no right to refuse to disclose them to your employer.And you certainly have no right to refuse to disclose them in the face of a formal legal instrument like a legitimately issued subpoena.

      None of these squealing numpties at NASA, or Bradley as in his HuffPo blather, seems able to grasp this simple work-place fact the rest of us normals know and have known forever. They really do seem to think that their government work-related communications are not disclosable to … another govt area.

      It’s just so unprofessional and ignorant. What are they trying to hide? Blackbriar? Treadstone? Outcome?

    • When people demonstrate gross stupidity it reflects on the quality of all the work they do. This is not a hard issue to understand. Everyone with a room temp IQ or higher gets it. If he shows he doesn’t get it, then we have to evaluate him and his work accordingly.

  23. When will the GWPF release the results of its enquiry, and is Gavin honest?

  24. I know of someone very highly placed who publicly and openly distorts temperature, making maxima cooler and minima warmer. Been doing it for yonks. He must chuckle at our efforts to collate and interpret past readings, especially min/max.

    He’s a shadowy figure called Mr Cloud.

  25. Adjust the ship measurements down then. Same result for the trend as adjusting the buoys up.

    Judy still does not understand that. Result of Judy’s politicization. Reading some emails will not amend that.

    And what about Oiv2?

    Some hiatus. Like the 80ies and 90ies.

    Why not check out buoys only? Just to demonstrate the wrongness of ersst4. From NIeves 2015:
    Argo 0-10 meters 2004-2012: 0.0022 C/yr
    Ersst4 2004 – 2012: 0.0025 C/yr.

    Very convincing. But not the way Judy would like to believe.

    • How about not adjusting either the ship or buoy data, genius?

      • That would be lying,

        You have a ship at location X. it records 5.6
        you have a bouy at the same location. it records 5.8

        You study ALL co located ships and bouys and you find out that YUP
        there is a consistent difference between the two.

        What do you do.

        YOU DO THE SAME THING SPENCER AND CHRISTY DO when they adjust one satellite series to align with another.

        YOU DO THE SAME THING the solar physicist do when different instruments measuring the same thing differ. You adjust one of them.

        IF you dont adjust the SST series.. the global warming INCREASES

      • Steven Mosher,

        Why are you so intent on cooling by adjusting? If the unadjusted figures show warming, then so be it.

        It seems you can produce cooling, warming, or no change, by changing your adjustment algorithm or not using it at all.

        Do you also remove data that you think is wrong?

        Wonderful. As long as everybody realises you produce a result that the customer wants, there’s no harm done. Pretending it’s science is misleading, at BEST.

        Cheers.

      • Well. You are not happy with Judith’s choice of SST dataset?

        Tell her that.

        You did not quite get the non-adjusted argo-buyos either. That matches ersst4 beautifully.

        But of course if you want no correction in this period, all you have to do is to use Ersst3b. Still available. This bias has been known for a long time:

        “Because ships tend to be biased warm relative to buoys and because of the increase in the number of buoys and the decrease in the number of ships, the merged in situ data without bias adjustment can have a cool bias relative to data with no ship – buoy bias. As buoys become more important to the in situ record, that bias can increase. Since the 1980s the SST in most areas has been warming. The increasing negative bias due to the increase in buoys tends to reduce this recent warm-ing. This change in observations makes the in situ tem-peratures up to about 0.1°C cooler than they would be without bias. At present, methods for removing the ship – buoy bias are being developed and tested.”

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/Improvements-NOAAs-Historical-Merged-land-Ocean-Temp-Analysis-1880-2006_0.pdf

        They knew there was a bias. But did not adjust for that in ersst3b. Now they have. As has been done in Hadsst3 (Where is the outcry for that? What? No emails???)

        Anyhow. Not buoy adjusted ersst3b:

        Some pause. Like earlier pauses.

    • ehak:

      See Huang, et al., quoted above at https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/05/jc-op-ed-the-politics-surrounding-global-temperature-data/#comment-741366.

      Adjusting the buoys (not the ships) produced a spurious warming after 1980, even though it left the longer trend intact.

      Of course, this was not the only adjustment Karl (2015) introduced into the official record. The cumulative effect was … interesting. Further investigation into the reasoning that drove these decisions is well within the scope of Congressional power.

      • B. Huang is the lead author on the paper you quoted, and a co-author on Karl’s paper.

        Maybe he’s also Judy’s NOAA whistleblower. Maybe it pays to just Huang around.

        Why do you cal it spurious?

      • Spurious because it is an artifact of the selected adjustment methodology.

      • Nope. Read again your own citation. Whether you adjust the ship or the buoys will give the same result. That is what “same trend” means. Of course adjusting for the fact that buoy measurements are lower than ship measurements will give higher temperature when there are more buoys. It does not matter wether you keep the buoys fixed or the ships fixed.

      • ehak:

        Whether you adjust the ship or the buoys will give the same result. That is what “same trend” means.

        I’m not talking about the trend. Neither was Karl, et al., which incorporated Huang, et al.

        Karl helpfully hinted at this fact in the title of his paper:

        Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

        I believe Dr. Curry’s concern is that continuing to add this adjustment to buoy data in the future will result in artificially inflating the trend. Steven Mosher, elsewhere herein, has called for NOAA to publish both methods of adjustment to show that the trend is unaffected either way (which is exactly what the Huang paper reported).

        It is a distraction to keep saying the trend is the same when no one disputes it.

  26. The Scientific Issue

    Dr. Curry mentioned the OISST sea surface temperature data product, which is produced by NOAA. On the OISST website, there is a section called “Input Data Preparation”. In that section there is a chart showing the steps involved in processing the raw data. In the lower left corner of the chart, there is an oval labeled “Correct Ship Data for Biases”. So there is an adjustment to the ship data, but not to the buoy data. This makes sense if the ship data is considered less accurate than the buoy data.

    So why did Karl et al. choose to adjust the buoy data instead of the ship data? That is an issue which could certianly be solved within the peer-review process of research publication, and does not require the interference of a congressional investigation.

    The Political Issue

    If the decisions that lead Karl et al. to make assumptions about how to adjust the data were based on purely objective evidence, then a congressional inquiry is neither necessary or desirable.

    The question is, were the motives of Karl et al., or other higher administrators at NOAA, politically partisan? Were they making scientific descions, not based on objective reasoning, but rather on a desire to support the policy goals of this particular president? For any persons in the administration of a federal agency to use the resources of that agency for politically partisan purposes is unacceptable.

    This aspect of the issue cannot be resolved in the “self-correcting” process of scientific peer review. It can only be resolved by investigating the non-scientific records (e.g., e-mails) of the participants.

    • The first and third paragraphs under “The Political Issue” seem to contradict one another. I believe that “investigating the non-scientific records of the participants” is what Chairman Smith has in mind.

      • Yes. A review of their internal correspondence would show whether they were acting in an objective, scientific manner, or in a politically motivated, partisan manner.

  27. simon abingdon

    Buoys

  28. NOAA’s response to the Congressional subpeona shows clearly their disregard for the law.

    If that’s their response to the Congressional Committee which provides their funding, how do you think they’d respond to a FOIA request from the public for pretty much the same info?

    Here’s the request, following by the NOAA response:

    • Tracking Number: DOC-NOAA-2014-001602
    • Requester Name: Kent Clizbe
    • Date Submitted: 09/07/2014
    • Request Status: Submitted
    • Description: 1. Temperature Data Record Adjustments: Rationale, Methodology, Discussions–USG employees and others
    For the NOAA/National Climactic Data Center: Please provide Internal and external e-mails, letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications, from, to, and between: government employees, external consultants, experts, advisors, or other parties regarding the rationale, methodology, and other issues concerning adjustments/homogenization or other changes to both the US and global temperature record data, from the beginning of the adjustments through today.

    NOAA’s response,

    March 17, 2015
    “We estimate that the cost to search for responsive records will be approximately $262,000. This estimate is based on approximately 1.9 years of Search and Review time….”

    Case closed!

    Next transparency opportunity!

    • So, they are saying that for some amount of money the public can get the information. I guess Congress could file an FOIA and give them some extra funding and get the same stuff. That ‘s not consistent with their protecting scientific integrity BS.

      • You are approaching this the wrong way.

        The congressional query was aimed at the people who set policy on data adjustment. Not the peons. They should query NOAA on how many people in setting policy on data adjustment.

        There should be no more 12 people involved in setting policy.

        If NOAA comes back with the list of hundreds or thousands hinted at in their initial response, congress should cut their funding until only 12 people are identified as being involved in policy.

        If NOAA is serious in their initial response they are horribly overstaffed and that should be fixed immediately.

      • There are several authors involved in the study. I don’t know if they are involved in “setting policy” as you say or whether they are peons or not. I am not sure what you mean by “setting policy” either.

    • Send that over to the committee, kent.

    • Yeah it would cost the same if it were for a FOIA request. But who cares about the money, Don. We need this fishing expedition..

      • Stop whining, yoey. Elections have consequences.

      • Its not whining, Don. I am just wondering whether Curry is naive enough to believe that is not for most part enough entirely a political action. She seems to think this will reduce the politicization for some reason.

      • Congressmen, who are politicians, are expected to be political. That is their job, yoey. They serve their constituents. Smith et al were not elected by left-loon greeny alarmists. Don’t expect them to do what your crowd wants them to do.

      • So you think Judith is wrong for calling this a way to reduce politicization? How could it possibly do that?!

      • I will help you, yoey. When the Congressional oversight committee gets a hold of the emails of NOAA scientists conspiring to erase the pause that is killing the cause, that will put a chill on the politicization of NOAA scientists.

      • You haven’t a clue what it might cost Joseph.

        But then clueless is what you are good at.

      • I don’t want to burst any balloons, but there are no emails conspiring to erase the already almost completely dead pause.

    • Well, how many NOAA employees are involved in homogenization policy discussions?

      A dozen?

    • horrible FOIA.

      You played into their hands.

      • Gee, willikers, Daddy Mosher, you’re so smart!

        Why can’t we all have your clearly superior sense of self?

        If only everyone was a perspicacious and sagacious as you think you are.

        When this scam is finally up, there’s a great opportunity at the carnival–or the bus station–your mis-direction banter and babbling will surely earn you a profit with the rubes there.

        Until they run you out of town on a rail.

        In the meantime, happy adjusting!

  29. I can remember as a young 19 yr. old undergrad studying Physical Oceanography at NYU in the mid 1960’s visiting the brand spanking new NOAA research vessel “The Oceanographer” moored at the Merchant Marine Academy docks at Fort Schuyler. I was so impressed that all I wanted to do (other than figure out how to get in my girlfriend’s pants………now my wife of 48 yrs) was to get a job with NOAA (a relatively new and dynamic agency at the time) and ride that ship all over the world collecting CSTD data to help better understand how the oceans and the atmosphere worked.

    I never went down that path and sometimes wondered what I had missed. If the current situation is any indication of life at NOAA, I am glad I missed it.

  30. Regardless of which side you are on, when you accept a job with NOAA, your emails are property of the government, not yours to selectively provide. Case closed.

    • +1 Jerry.

      NOAA’s reaction to a legitimately issued subpoena tells me that the silly govt climate alarmists there, a la Karl, didn’t learn a single lesson from the Climategate-leaked-emails episode. I’ll wager their emails are as unprofessional and filled with sniping and conspiracy as ever and that’s why they don’t want to make them available for external review.

  31. This will help settle the science, NYT: Exxon Mobil Investigated in New York Over Possible Lies on Climate (don’t know how to link to paywall’d NYT).

  32. Excuse me, but those who complain about adjusting buoy data up 0.12 C to the level of ship data, e g Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen and Chip Knappenberger ( and You Judith?) must be innumerates.
    It doesn’t matter for the anomaly trend, if ships are adjusted down by 0.12, or buoys are adjusted up by 0.12. But, if you doesn’t do this adjustment, when there is a gradual transition from ships to buoys, the you deliberately try to hide the increasing trend in SST. Metoffice, HADSST3, did this adjustment back in 2011.
    I believe that even Bob Tisdale understands this, and finds the adjustments justified and mandatory for a good scientific practice. On the other hand, he has some misconceptions that the refined bucket correction ( by use of HADNMAT2) has a role in removing the hiatus. The correct answer is that the bucket correction only affects old data more than 60 years back in time..

    Also, there are no significant differences in trends between ERSSTv4, OISST v2 or ARGO 5 m data…

    • No difference if # of buoys and # of ships remains constant in time. however, this is not the case, # of buoys increases with time. This is not tricky math.

      • Judith CurryÈ “No difference if # of buoys and # of ships remains constant in time. however, this is not the case, # of buoys increases with time. This is not tricky math.”

        Judith, that’s precisely the very simple point that you and other skeptics keep missing. The progressive increase in the ratio of intrinsically warmer (ships) to intrinsically cooler (buoys) measurements introduces a cooling bias in the trend for the combined data. This bias must be corrected and it makes no difference to the trend if you either adjust the ship data down, or the buoy data up, since the trends in both of those sets is the same. So, what you claim in the OP — that the warming trend increase in the adjusted data is a result from adjusting more reliable (and cooler) data to less reliable (and warmer) data — is false. The reverse adjustment (cooling the ships) produces the same warming effect on the trend.

        It’s like having two sets of daily measurements of the height of little Johnny: one set of measurements taken where he is barefoot, and another one where he is wearing shoes. He is measured to be 1cm taller on average when he is wearing shoes than when he is barefoot, say. Over time, little Johnny is being measured barefoot with an increased frequency. This produces an artificial reduction in the calculated growth rate. However, if we look at both sets of measurements separately, they both show the same (higher) growth rate. You can get this very same growth rate from the combined data through either adding 1cm to the ‘barefoot’ data or subtracting 1cm to the ‘shoe’ data. It would be wrong to claim that the growth rate is artificially inflated by the first method just as it would be wrong to claim that it is reduced by the second one.

      • Please think again, before it gets embarrassing. I can give an example:

        If we assume that the real SST is the same in year A and year B

        Year A: 5 ships report 0.0 C, 5 buoys report -0.12 C
        Year B: 5 ships report 0.0 C, 45 buoys report -0.12 C

        V3 method ( no adjustment)
        Average year A -0.06 C, average year B -0.108

        V4 method ( all buoy data are adjusted up 0.12 C)
        Average year A 0.0 C, average year B 0.0 C

        Alternative V4 method ( all ship data are adjusted down 0.12 C)
        Average year A -0.12 C, average year B -0.12

        As you can see, non-adjustment practice cause a spurious cooling trend of -0.048 between year A and B. The both V4 alternatives show correctly no change in temperature between year A and B

      • According to Huang (2015), adjusting the buoys (not the ships) created a small, spurious warming from 1980 forward.

      • Opluso, I can imagine a number of reasons for that. For instance that the difference between buoys and ships is slightly temperature dependent. If the geographical distribution of buoys an ships in cool and warm water changes , or the SST in general increases during the transition, then it could result in a minor bias. However, the non adjustment alternative (v3b) would likely cause a much larger spurious cooling, (but max -0.12 during a full transition from ships to buoys)

        Another alternative is to adjust the buoys up 0.06 and the ships down 0.06 :-)

      • Haung is also an author on the Karl paper in question.

        According to Huang (2015), adjusting the buoys (not the ships) created a small, spurious warming from 1980 forward. … -Opluso

        Opluso – where does Huang cal it spurious? I don’t see that. Is that your word for it, or Huang’s? It seems odd he would co-author a paper with what he considered to be a spurious result.

      • opluso – I believe you are misunderstanding what Huang et al are saying, perhaps because of a poor choice of words on their part. They do not say that adjusting buoys, not ships, causes a spurious warming. Olof R and Pierre-Normand Houle are correct; adjusting is necessary and gives the same result either way.

      • Opluso, the Huang et al 2014 paper is paywalled but I found this, cut from the article by Bob Tisdale:

        “5.3 Ship-buoy SST adjustment

        In addition to the ship SST bias adjustment, the drifting and moored buoy SSTs in ERSST.v4 are adjusted toward ship SSTs, which was not done in ERSST.v3b. Since 1980 the global marine observations have gone from a mix of roughly 10% buoys and 90% ship-based measurements to 90% buoys and 10% ship measurements (Kennedy et al. 2011). Several papers have highlighted, using a variety of methods, differences in the random biases and a systematic difference between ship-based and buoy-based measurements, with buoy observations systematically cooler than ship observations (Reynolds et al. 2002; Reynolds et al. 2010; Kent et al. 2010; amongst others). Here the adjustment is determined by (1) calculating the collocated ship-buoy SST difference over the global ocean from 1982-2012, (2) calculating the global areal weighted average of ship-buoy SST difference, (3) applying a 12-month running filter to the global averaged ship-buoy SST difference, and (4) evaluating the mean difference and its STD of ship-buoy SSTs based on the data from 1990 to 2012 (the data are noisy before 1990 due to sparse buoy observations). The mean difference of ship-buoy between 1990 and 2012 is 0.12°C with a STD of 0.02°C (all rounded to hundredths in precision). The mean difference of 0.12°C is at the lower-end of published values of 0.12°C to 0.18°C (e.g. Reynolds et al. 2002; Reynolds et al. 2010; Kent et al. 2010). Although buoy SSTs are generally more homogeneous than ship SSTs, they are adjusted here because otherwise it would be necessary to adjust ship SSTs before1980 when there were no or very few buoys. As expected, the global averaged SSTA trends between 1901 and 2012 (refer to Table 2) are the same whether buoy SSTs are adjusted to ship SSTs or the reverse. However, the global mean SST is 0.06°C warmer after 1980 in ERSST.v4 because of the buoy adjustments (not shown) and there are therefore impacts on the long-term trends compared to applying no adjustment to account for the change in observational platforms.”

        Opluso, Based on this I reject what you are suggesting. There is no spurious warming due to the chosen practice, “As expected, the global averaged SSTA trends between 1901 and 2012 (refer to Table 2) are the same whether buoy SSTs are adjusted to ship SSTs or the reverse.”
        Also, they have been conservative, by only adjusting with 0.12 C, beeing in the lower range of published values 0.12-0.18 C.

      • JCH:

        Opluso – where does Huang cal it spurious? I don’t see that. Is that your word for it, or Huang’s? It seems odd he would co-author a paper with what he considered to be a spurious result.

        Huang does use the word “spurious” in reference to ship deck height (which increased over time) introducing a spurious cooling effect in the bucket records. His paper is largely an effort to remove spurious effects from the record — which is a scientifically appropriate endeavor.

        However, the choice of “spurious” in reference to the small warming generated by these specific buoy adjustments was mine and mine alone. The fact that adjusting buoy data resulted in an unobserved warming post-1980 makes it “spurious”, IMO.

        Some have argued (see Mosher, S @ nauseum, ad) that the pause is not particularly interesting even while admitting it has political importance. Yet it is hard to ignore the title and focus of Karl’s paper or his references to other published papers on the topic when considering the level of interest in the hiatus/pause within the scientific community.

        This otherwise trivial adjustment to modern buoy data was a necessary but insufficient condition for removal of the pause/hiatus. Many other data adjustments were made at the same time. Even then, to be able to report that the hiatus/pause was a possible “artifact” (that is, spurious result) of data biases, Karl et al., had to apply a 0.10 significance level, rather than the more stringent 0.05 test. Interesting, indeed.

        If the hiatus/pause was not a sufficiently interesting subject before, Karl’s meticulously structured and ultimately controversial efforts to prove its non-existence certainly raised awareness, and interest, for a lot of people.

      • If Houle and Olaf R are making the point that aggregation of two different temperature time series creates something of a mess with a possible downward bias in its “trend”, who could argue with that? However, the solution is definitely not a constant offset over the whole time series, for the reason given by Prof Curry (aka basic calculus). For instance, that approach can produce a significant slope from two flat temperature series. Perhaps (??), the solution is a year by year adjustment designed to preserve a notionally constant ratio of ships to buoys. But the topic of aggregation bias is full of pitfalls.

      • Olaf R:

        I don’t believe I have suggested that Karl, et al., changed the long-term trend (at least up to year 2012). It did, however, change the modern hiatus/pause. Two different things.

        Perhaps this quote (which we both rely upon) does not mean what I think it means. It seems rather straightforward to me.

        However, the global mean SST is 0.06°C warmer after 1980 in ERSST.v4 because of the buoy adjustments (not shown) and there are therefore impacts on the long-term trends compared to applying no adjustment to account for the change in observational platforms.

      • The pause was paws up long before Karl erased it. It would have been interesting had it continued from when it started in 2006 until 2031 – 25 years. But it started dying in 2012, died a whole bunch more in 2013, all but expired in 2014, and is being abused in death every single day of 2015.

      • opluso:

        “I don’t believe I have suggested that Karl, et al., changed the long-term trend (at least up to year 2012). It did, however, change the modern hiatus/pause. Two different things. ”

        If adjusting the bouys instead of adjusting the intake-measurements introduced a spurious warming then the long term-trends would be different for those two methods.

        Very simple.

        The warming has killed the pause. Like earlier pauses.

      • ehak:

        If adjusting the bouys instead of adjusting the intake-measurements introduced a spurious warming then the long term-trends would be different for those two methods.

        Confusion can arise when people are talking about different aspects of the same thing. The long term trend is determined by the end points selected. Intervening, short term trends can wiggle all over the place because they have different start/end points.

        In this case, Huang pointed out that the buoy adjustments produced a warming in recent years relative to the same period without the adjustments.

        That’s his story and I’m sticking to it.

      • opluso:

        In this case it is the end point section of the data that will change i relation to the earlier section. Not some section in between. That applies whether you adjust intake or buoy. Therefore the long term trend must change if those two methods gave different results.

      • And opluso: If you are really interested in whether there will different results with adjutment of intak or boyo, why don’t you send him an email and ask him? And stick to the answer you get.

        Very easy to do.

      • From the Karl et al supplement:

        Sea Surface Temperature: ERSST v4 provides monthly sea surface temperature anomalies with respect to the 1971-2000 base period for a global 2ox2o grid. The gridded field is produced from ship and buoy sea surface temperatures in the ICOADS release 2.5 data set (29) using bias correction and Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnection methodologies as described in (13). The addition of buoy data in recent decades has been particularly important as the spatial coverage from ship observations has decreased since the 1990’s (cf. Fig. 1(a) in (13)). As stated in this article, three of the 11 major improvements incorporated into ERSST version 4 had by far the largest impact on the trend during the recent “hiatus” period (2000-2014). To make the buoy data equivalent to ship data on average requires a straightforward addition of 0.12°C to each buoy observation. This impacts the trend only because the number of buoys and percentage of coverage by buoys has increased over this period.

        In addition, because buoy data were determined to have less noise than ship data (greater precision), another improvement was to give buoy data more weight when using Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections to reconstruct SST (see equation 3 in (13)). With this correction, the buoy data have now been homogeneously integrated with the ship data. This resulted in additional warming.

        The factor that contributed the largest change in SST trends over this period was continuing to make corrections to ship data after 1941. These corrections are based on information derived from night marine air temperature. This correction cools the ship data a bit more in 1998-2000 than it does in the later years, which thereby adds to the warming trend. To evaluate the robustness of this correction, trends of the corrected and uncorrected ship data were compared to co-located buoy data without the offset added. As the buoy data did not include the offset the buoy data are independent of the ship data. The trend of uncorrected ship minus buoy data was -0.066°C dec-1 over the period 2000-2014, while the trend in corrected ship minus buoy data was -0.002°C dec-1. This close agreement in the trend of the corrected ship data indicates that these time dependent ship adjustments did indeed correct an artifact in ship data impacting the trend over this hiatus period. …

  33. JC’s big contribution is a well credentialed doubter. We other doubters don’t have the chops to argue except on our own random intersections with physics.

    She has her own interest though in climate science being thought of as a science, so she’s slightly on the other side as well.

  34. Another example of potential malfeasance by a mid-level government apparatchik, a certain Phil North, formerly a career employee at the EPA. Mr. North has been subpoenaed to answer questions whether he acted illegally to coordinate a response by environmentalists against a potential mineral development project. And where is Phil North? He’s disappeared and his official work computer hard drive is unrecoverable (implication: its been destroyed).
    http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/01/fed-judge-subpoenas-ex-epa-official-in-pebble-case/

    The more you look the more one sees government scientists with their fingers-on-the-scales. Congress has the right to investigate the motives and actions of public employees, using public funds to produce reports being used to influence public policy.

    Its also worth considering this Obama administration has prosecuted more government employees for leaks to journalists than any other administration. Not the wrap on the knuckles, but jail time threats. And yet, when Congress exercises its same rights we get inundated with quotes from “The Crucible”. Funny never heard the same people complaining about Rep. Smith saying one pep when the Obama administration put Jeffery Sterling in jail.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/obama-has-sentenced-whistleblowers-to-31-times-the-jail-time-of-all-prior-u-s-presidents-combined.html

  35. If the House Science Committee can work to minimize the political influence on government-funded research, it will have done both science and the policies that depend on science a big favor.

    So you want everyone to believe this is not a politically motivated fishing expedition on Rep. Smith’s part. What about the other authors? Were they just blindly following orders and not using their own judgement?

    • Elections have consequences, yoey. The winners get to hold the fishing rods. Don’t worry. Before Obamma gives up power, the NOAA will have an epidemic of hard drive crashes.

      • I know you would support a Democratic fishing expedition as well, right?

      • I will always support the prerogative and duty of Congress to keep an eye on un-elected bureaucrats, yoey.

      • Joseph, the NOAA people work for the govt. They are govt workers. Their emails are not confidential to them. Their emails are ‘work product’ and belong to their employer, the govt. Employment law 101, wherever you are, in the US or elsewhere. These govt climate scientist employees were asked 3 times to disclose their disclosable govt work emails by another sector of the govt and they refused based on the wholly idiotic ‘principle’ that govt scientist employees are somehow exempt from employment law.

        What does it say about the govt climate scientist employees at NOAA that they need a subpoena before they understand their emails are not confidential to them?

        It says that they are ignorant of the law.

        What does it say abut the govt scientist employees, that even after Climategate, they still believe themselves to be above the law?

        It sys they’ve learned nothing from Climategate and they remain as unprofessional as ever.

        The squealing we’re hearing from them plus Gavin Schmidt at NASA and Bradley in HuffPo, it’s pre-shame.

      • Don, “I will always support the prerogative and duty of Congress to keep an eye on un-elected bureaucrats, yoey.”

        The Golden Fleece Award was a democratic tradition I highly approved of. Nothing like a little congressional attention to inspire an organization to keep track of their budget and avoid plagiarizing the private sector. Might even make them think about being a bit more competitive in their primary roles.

      • The congressmen also work for the government, but something tells me we will never see all their emails on this subject that spurred them on to this wild goose chase of an investigation. The call for emails is not to investigate anything scientific, otherwise they would have looked at the data itself to try to prove it wrong. It is just to send a threatening message to any other government scientists who have inconvenient climate-related results for the Republicans that maybe they will want to think again before publishing it.

      • The Congressman work for the people, you clown. They are directly elected representatives of the people. you won’t be seeing their email. Look up Speech and Debate clause, whinger. Elections have consequences. It’s going to get a lot worse for your crowd when Trump appoints the AG. How about his pal Rudy Giuliani? You better plan on moving to Canada, yimmy.

      • Very naive, Don. You still live in an idealistic democracy where you think your congressman listens to you, not just the person with large amounts of cash for his next campaign. They do need to be held to account by the people, not just the ones in their gerrymandered districts, especially if they are chairing committees.

      • I am guessing you don’t have any problem with the Congress, when it is controlled by union goons and left-loon greenies. Go occupy Wall Street, yimmy. We have had enough of your foolishness here.

      • JimD

        Big news on the main BBC news this morning is that Exxon have been subpoenaed to produce material related to their climate change activities.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/05/exxonmobil-investigation-climate-change-peabody

        Presumably you will be claiming this is entirely different to NOAA and is right and proper whilst the NOAA enquiry is a witch hunt?

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        I’ve got this one. You see, while NOAA only works for congress Exxon actually owns it.

      • Richard Arrett

        Jim D said “The congressmen also work for the government, but something tells me we will never see all their emails on this subject that spurred them on to this wild goose chase of an investigation.”

        True.

        That is because the legislative branch does oversight on the executive branch – but not visa versa.

        Congress has the power to spend and the job of making sure the money is spent properly (please stop laughing).

        So you are correct – but that is the constitution for you.

      • This probably explains why Congress has so many committees that are just a waste of time or go rogue and use taxpayer money to promote partisan views, and they are not accountable to anyone for their political biases. It’s a problem that is typical of much of what is wrong in Congress today. What is the solution?

      • The solution is revolution, yimmy! Put a bag over your head, get into your little birkenstocks and man the barricades! (Don’t forget to cut eye holes in the bag, yimmy.)

  36. Estimates of CO2 level and average global temperature trajectory (no sustained temperature change) for the last 500 million years is evidence CO2 has no effect on climate. This is demonstrated at Energy & Environment, Vol 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845 & http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    A co-plot of el Niño anomalies since 1964 from http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml with all oscillations time-shifted so peaks align, indicates an el Niño with trajectory of the current one should have peaked in October. Unfortunately data points are reported more than a month after they occur so the first report of expected November downtrend will not be seen until January.

    Also, the short-term uptrend (summer) in longer-term downtrend (since 2005) in AMO should have ended.

    Combined with the predictive equation which has matched 97% with measured average global temperatures since before 1900 this all looks like a steepening downtrend of reported average global temperatures within a few months and accelerated increase of ‘months without warming’.

  37. Judith chooses to investigate whether Karl received letters from Obama, but not whether Smith has been receiving briefings from oil companies or groups like Cato/Heartland funded by them in order to go after Karl. Anyway the hiatus was already on thin ice before the Karl paper. Spot the hiatus(?) here, for example.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25

  38. Two Questions —

    (1) Is there any precedent for a subpoena very similar to Rep. Smith’s being issued, contested, and upheld by a Court?

    (2) Is there any precedent of a Democrat issuing a subpoena similar to Rep. Smith into a federal department when a Republican Administration was in power (e.g., Bush)? What was the Republican response?

    • Stephen,

      1. Virtually unheard of. Federal employees’ writings on the job belong to THE PUBLIC.

      2. Yes, see below for the most famous example. Many people went to jail for exactly what NOAA is doing now.

      “Court Battle Set as Nixon Defies Subpoenas

      By Susanna McBee
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Friday, July 27, 1973; Page A01

      A grave constitutional battle began yesterday when Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the U.S. District Court here ordered President Nixon to explain in court why he should not produce certain tape recordings and documents in the Watergate case.”

      The Nixon administration’s stone-walling of a Congressional investigation led to multiple Obstruction of Justice prosecutions. The obstruction included refusing to hand over subpoenaed materials.

      And Watergate was a pre-school romp on the playground compared to the economic and life-changing effects perpetrated on the country by the AGW scammers.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/072773-1.htm

      • Excellent response Kent! I whole-heartedly agree. It seems the climate science head honchos have forgotten who they work for. Apparently they consider billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars showered on them every year is their god-given right. The pendulum always swings to far. The last 20 years it has swung favorably for cli sci. I predict (and hope) the next 20 years public funds for cli sci evaporate to near zero. Let Tom Steyer fund them if he wishes. Not the government! We have seen first hand what a BAD idea that was! My vote is to go back to the government generally not funding scientific research except for things where there is demonstrable near term value for the public, such as for military technology. I think the majority of citizens in the USA feel the same way right now. And Trump is our axe-man. With some effort perhaps Mosher can make a career change to Walmart greeter.

    • Silly questions. Do your own research.

    • Two questions, Stephen:

      1. is there any precedent of any other type of govt employed scientists, other than climate scientists, thinking their work email is somehow not covered by basic employment law i.e disclosable in the absence of it being classified secret?

      2. Is there any precedent of a Democrat bothering to check the work email of blatantly politicised govt employed climate scientists? And being refused 3 times so that eventually a subpoena is needed to try to get them to disclose?

    • My questions were not to provoke a fight and was prompted by Dr. Curry’s link to a Politifact story which stated — the committee’s rules on issuing subpoenas were recently changed where the committee under Smith’s leadership has now issued six subpoenas, more than were used in its previous 54-year history.

      • Smith is forced to subpoena information he wants to look at, because the Obama administration defies Congressional oversight. The information should be provided without a freaking subpoena. What are they hiding?

        Why don’t you look at the six instances in which Smith issued subpoenas and tell us why the information should not be provided to Congress? What is it about Congressional oversight that you don’t get?

  39. I remember when educated people were embarrassed to use or react to the expression “record”, since unqualified use of the term was something tricksters reserved for yokels. Education helped you to know that the length and consistency of any supposed “record” were critical to its having any meaning at all. Qualification was all. But flash forward to 2015, to Anything-Goes and Publish-or-Perish!

    I suppose Argo must have been a pointless exercise, for all the expense, expertise and refinement. I mean, if you can just merge it with bucket data (engine intake for warming, side dip and evap for cooling, canvas/wood/metal for more confusion…and take your pick about all the rest) you obviously don’t think much of Argo. You just want some numbers, don’t you? Like those bristlecone numbers which can’t tell you much about temps at all, or those min/max readings which tell very little about what happened temp wise on a given day. You get some smart looking numbers after extensive crunching, and bugger the rest.

    But marrying Argo to bucket is like gorgeous young starlet married to an eighty year old tramp. Not only is it a grotesque mismatch, but there’s no payday for anybody.

  40. Whether you adjust the buoys or the ships, the change in the trend is the same. You don’t need Mosher to tell you this.

    • Why bother adjusting either, if the trend is the same, yimmy? The ship-buoy issue has been known for many years. Many other research groups chose not to make the pause erasing adjustment. NOAA chose not to make the pause erasing adjustment, for many years. Why now? If the adjustment was necessary and proper, they should be investigated for not making it much sooner. What are those clowns getting paid for?

      • you have to adjust one or the other or you are lying

      • It is a known trend bias due to changing measurement types over time. Known biases have to be corrected rather than ignored. Karl has done this in the past as a leader of the TOBS correction that no one (except Watts) disputes. If it went the other way, the skeptics would be in favor of making a correction, and no one would be asking for any written correspondence with Obama. McIntyre accepted Karl’s TOBS correction and maybe has to weigh in on this one to calm the skeptics down, but so far he has said nothing preferring to talk about deflategate when this came out.

      • See my comment on the chart you so graciously provided, Steven. Is the adjusted data for the period post 2000 closer to reality than the raw data? I am thinking it ain’t.

      • Curious George

        SM- Adjusting is not lying. Who cares about “unchangeable past”?

    • If all you care about is a rather meaningless long term trend, I guess it doesn’t matter. If you want good information to figure out the dynamics of earth systems, particularly on time scales that could be used to make decisions to reduce risk and improve outcomes, a person might care.

      • And if you care a lot about a rather meaningless long term trend and the short term dynamics suggest the trend is rather meaningless and unimportant…

  41. The back-and-forth (ebb and flow?) of the ship vs buoy argument is only part of the story. Go back and review Karl (2015) and you will see that no single adjustment was sufficient to eliminate the pause. It took a lot of work to get it just right.

  42. Why tinker with the data? Because otherwise, evidence of a possible solar influence on Earth’s climate is undeniable.

    But, how about the influence of CO2 and the so-called greenhouse effect? Is it real?

    Nope, not really. The analogy that increasing atmospheric CO2 acts like a greenhouse has been shattered with the grand debunking of an old experiment, proving Al Gore does not know his gas from a hole in a bottle.

    See it here: Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics

    • Why tinker with the data? Why indeed. The TOS and other legitimate changes don’t change with time.

      The adjustments to historic data since 2008 are prima facia evidence of bias and dishonesty.

      The agencies should be given one and only one chance to show the raw data changed enough since 2008 to justified the adjustments to the historic record. Since we know the result – we’ll move to the solution.

      To stop the abuse of historic data:
      1. The engineering societies, mostly the IEEE and ASME, should to funded to produce a standard for processing of pre-2015 climate data, the algorithms, the exception handling, data set merges etc.

      2. A private contractor should be funded to create the historic temperature record as specified by the standard.

      3. If there is any variation in the historic record as reported the contractor shall be fired and replaced with a new contractor.

      4. The funding for maintaining other US and Global Climate records by US agencies shall be terminated.

      5. A new climate measurement system that only has stations at pristine sites away from urban/rural areas shall be established. The sensor performance shall conform to an engineering standard. This shall be the climate network of record. Adjustments to the reported data or replacement of sensors with non-standard devices shall be a felony.

      There you go. No UHI going forward, No more data adjusting, Dead data going backwards. Problem solved.

      • You clearly dont understand the problem.

        “Why tinker with the data? Why indeed. The TOS and other legitimate changes don’t change with time.”

        Actually they can change with time.

        Understand that the raw data never changes.

        What changes is the ESTIMATE of what the actual truth of the matter
        was. That will change based on new data, new approaches, and corrections to flawed records.

        the raw record is static. but the raw record is filled with problems.

        Let me give you a simple example

        Station A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
        Station B 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

        Suppose these are the only two stations you have.

        Your adjustment code MIGHT decided that both need to be adjusted

        1, .5, 1 etc

        The adjustment is trying to give you a view of what is most likely to reduce your error

        Now you discover a third station and digitize it

        Station C: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

        In this case your adjustment code might decided that Station B
        has flaws– that the zeros need to be corrected to 1.

        The raw data remains unchanged. But your estimate ( the adjusted stations ) changes based on new information.

      • No. Just no.

        Either they are going to produce a production temperature report for general consumption that is produced in conformance with an engineering standard, or they should be banned from disseminating it for external use until the adjustments are done. When they are done tinkering their methodology can be converted to an engineering standard and the responsibility for producing the production report turned over to another department now that they are done.

        Either that or just defund the the departments producing the propaganda reports and pay an external company to produce a production quality report for general consumption and political planning.

        It is better to be consistent than to be right.

      • Curious George

        SM – thank you for a beautiful example why adjustments are inherently flawed.

      • Curious George

        Steven – thank you for a beautiful example showing why adjustments are wrong. If you have two conflicting measurements, you assign a supposedly more reliable measurement more weight than the other one.

        But this is not what is happening with temperature data. There you have one station and you “adjust” its measured temperature based on another station hundreds of miles away.

  43. See the full text:

    http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf

    We conclude that the experiment is a demonstration of a “greenhouse effect,” but not of the radiative phenomena responsible for climate change.

    • Wagathon,

      From the paper –

      “Atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide can raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface by absorbing some of the far-infrared radiation emitted by Earth and re- emitting it isotropically.”

      I have a question, of course.

      When the Earth’s surface emits far infrared radiation (or any other wavelength), does the temperature not fall? It seems to at night.

      If the temperature falls, how can returning a portion of the emitted radiation cause it to be hotter than it was initially?

      Magic? Molten bits of the Earth, such as lava, on the surface, emit lots of far infrared, and cool down. Maybe CO2 doesn’t work on hot stuff. What do you think?

      Cheers.

      • Are you talking about transferring heat by conduction to a hotter body? Wouldn’t that define a perpetuum mobile? That certainly sounds impossible. If true I agree: it would have to be magic. Egads… AGW theory must be a hoax!

  44. Amongst the many criticisms and suggestions here, none have really addressed the elephant in the room: surface marine observations(SMOs) made by ships of opportunity do not produce SST data series for any fixed position in the ocean; they merely provide individual observations at ever-changing positions.

    Only through the process of stringing together such observations from different ships using different sampling methods are time-series obtained for individual 1X1 degree Marsden squares. In practice many of those squares are virtually empty, especially in the southern hemisphere, and their data don’t even provide reliable monthly climatological averages, let alone credible time-series.

    Many of us who have been comparing SMO results with bona fide SST measurements have come to the conclusion that they are scientifically worthless. No amount of data massaging can alter that. We should simply admit that over most of the oceans we know practically nothing of the course of SST before the advent of satellite sensing.

    • Amongst the many criticisms and suggestions here, none have really addressed the elephant in the room: surface marine observations(SMOs) made by ships of opportunity do not produce SST data series for any fixed position in the ocean; they merely provide individual observations at ever-changing positions.”

      It’s not a problem

      • Mosher
        Forget the issue of adjustments. The fact that anyone at anytime ever gave the ship gathered temperatures any credence at all speaks volumes about how desperate climate science was toget some legitimacy in their proclamation about OHC. True scientists would have gladly declared long ago they didn’t know a damn thing about Ocean temperatures. Instead we see a continuation of the charade of self delusion and putting up a proud front so no one will discover what a pathetic excuse all of this is for science. There is nothing before the buoys. Get over it.

      • Only an amateur with no concept of the material (Stokes) derivative and time-series aliasing would conclude that lack of serial observations, such as provided by land-station data, of diurnally varying temperature at fixed oceanic locations is “not a problem.”

  45. Of course, after adjusting/wishing upward you then have to explain why one should worry about yet another warming phase which is typical and garden variety for our geological epoch. It too shall pass. Let’s just hope any subsequent cooling isn’t too long or sharp. Migration periods, tumbling dynasties and LIAs are not fun. Oh no they are not.

    • SST is adjusted DOWNWARD

      • Adjust in any direction. Like it would matter. The Holocene Epoch temps are a dropped spaghetti, not terribly detailed, but the wiggly shape is pretty clear. You’re usually better off on a bump than in a dip, depending on where you live. We wouldn’t be constantly alarmed by perfectly natural conditions of change which have been pretty modest of late (remember, you could walk from Melbourne to Tasmania not that many millennia ago) if we didn’t pay a priesthood to be alarmed.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Nature adjusted SSTs from boiling to much less.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if your attempts to bring about the result you want – cooling, warming, funding – end in failure.

        It appears you still haven’t found your lost clue. The other Warmists don’t seem to have found it. Still clueless!

        Cheers.

      • And we are still engaged in millihair splitting.

  46. Judith. Re: “Last month, the House Science Committee, chaired by Lamar Smith (R-Texas), subpoenaed NOAA for data and communications relating to Karl’s article. However, NOAA is refusing to give Rep. Smith the documents…”

    My weekly “This Week in Science” email from AAAS had the following to say about it:
    “NOAA Response to Subpoena. Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration responded to a subpoena sent by the Chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Lamar Smith (R-TX), requesting data and internal communications related to a study conducted on the global surface warming hiatus. The * NOAA response * methodically explains the science that was questioned by the committee in their previous meetings and in the subpoena. NOAA, however, did not share the internal communications requested by the Chair in their response.

    The ” NOAA Response” is a link to the letter dated / received by Rep Lamar Smith in response to h is October 13, 2015 request to NOAA… NOAA’s letter can be downloaded at: http://click.aaas.sciencepubs.org/?qs=ae8e6ae7a0406eaaad343742755b5ec7d270031afc6d7cafded8a21490a0d5c9

    The NOAA letter states: “… we have: provided the Committee with the data it has requested, to the extent such data exist; provided citations to peer-reviewed articles that explain the methodology that NOAA scientist use to analyze the data; and explained how the temperature is measured by various means and how such data must be corrected for non-climatic factors. Finally at our own suggestions, we provided several of the scientists who authored the Karl, et al study to brief committee staff personally, one on June 16, 2015, and the second on October 19, 2015.” I’ll let you read the entire 4 page letter. It refers to presentation material, specifically powerpoints.. I would be keen to see those and replays or transcripts of the proceedings.

    • One wonders what use it is to give a scientific briefing to a group of congressional aides. They probably can’t tell their COADS from their NMAT, so 90% would go over their heads.

      • Stop the foolishness, yimmy. We are talking about the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Do you think they hire butchers, bakers and candlestick makers for committee staff positions? You ain’t very smart.

      • From the letter it looks like they met with Smith’s staff, and Smith didn’t even bother to show up. By “staff” I would assume youngsters doing internships and such.

      • “By “staff” I would assume youngsters doing internships and such.”

        That’s just another indication of how ignorant and ridiculous you are, yimmy.

  47. OK, my Mosher index has been exceeded by a factor of 2. I’m out of here.

    Too bad because this is probably Judith’s best post of the year.

    • “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Acton

      And he never even met Smith.

  48. “Another recent paper used a different NOAA ocean surface temperature data set to find that since 2003 the global average ocean surface temperature has been rising at a rate that is an order of magnitude smaller than the rate of increase reported in Karl’s paper.”

    Pet peeve. I do not like the buzz phrase “Order of magnitude.” Order of magnitude in what base? 10? 100? 2? 1.5?

    People use this term without understanding what it means. In general it means “By a lot, but I’m using a precise term.” No, the term is not precise. 10X is precise. 2X is precise. But “order of magnitude” is a fluffy term.

    Not that I disagree with the substance of the article. If correct, and global temperatures are correctly represented, it is going to be another nail in the coffin of public trust of scientists of all kinds. What a shame.

  49. Another nail in the coffin of the public’s confidence in science, along with NOAA’s temperature adjustments:

    Five-year-old savant from LA who displays signs of being telepathic – and is already learning seven languages – is being studied by scientists after his mother filmed him ‘reciting numbers written in secret’

  50. From the article:

    You might think this would be great news for all those scientists who have been warning us over the last few years about the impending horrors of “man-made global warming” but in fact they are not happy about it, not one bit.

    Here for example is Dr Jay Zwally, the lead author of this week’s surprising Nasa study that confirms that the Antarctic is gaining far more ice than it is losing.

    “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out. It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

    Does that sound to you like a neutral scientific opinion? Do you sense any relief at the good news that the climate apocalypse of melting ice caps and rising sea levels may not be quite so imminent after all? No, me neither.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

    • “this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out.’

      Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      The warmers have been using Antarctic melting as a cudgel to threaten non-warmers.

      Glad that’s over. Can’t wait for the report that Greenland isn’t melting (it really doesn’t seem to be melting)..

      How do you justify the rising sea levels when Antarctica is thickening?

      Could they just be measuring GMSL wrong? Perhaps they need to put their glasses on…

    • The attempt to measure the level of ~361,000,000 km^2 of ocean results in another case of splitting of the millihair, at least on a geographic scale.

  51. Material used in buckets? Time of sample? Location (currents and streams)? Continuity of depth? Local ‘weather’? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

    I don’t doubt Karl’s ‘chops’, but how does one justify adjustment towards such ‘uncertainty’. Agree fully with Mosher that the other direction makes more sense. Would actually prefer a ‘full stop’ from buckets and transition to buoys.

  52. Where did Mosher say the other direction made more sense?

  53. ” If the House Science Committee can work to minimize the political influence on government-funded research, it will have done both science and the policies that depend on science a big favor.”

    Spot on.

  54. International Argo-Following Scientists:
    We set up Argo floats because we needed data more
    reliable than the ships’ bucket SST recording, what with
    ships’ engine heating effects and other quality control
    problems.

    Karl and NOAH:
    It is our view that, naturally, theory and data must make
    a match, and so, apropos theory, we’ve opted for the
    buckets SST data.

    IAFS: So that means you’ve upped the cooler Argo temps
    to warmer bucket temps?

    K&N: Naturally.

    IAFS: So all future Argo data, supposedly the state of the
    art SST technology, will hafta’ be adjusted to warmer bucket
    trends?

    K & N: Stands to reason that buckets must become the new
    gold standard of SST data.

    • beth

      If scientists need to rely on bucket samples of water to prove the historic global temperature of our oceans, perhaps it is time to recognise that there are some aspects of our climate data that are not worth relying on.

      tonyb

      • Tony & Beth,
        Maybe we can get a volume break on 5 gallon buckets. We can use them to collect sea water and check it’s temp. We can use it to measure rain and snowfall. We can turn them over and use them as field chairs. They can be used as ice chests for beverages of choice. Why spend all that money on satellites and buoys? Heck, maybe we can even turn the buckets in to buoys with some imagination.

      • Ever the data man, I like to leave a plaster bucket out by the bamboo to get an idea of rainfall. Been away for a week, rain falling all up and down the coast, but my bucket was almost empty.

        There are many explanations as to why my place is the only one in the state acting like a proper El Nino afflicted area. (We’re supposed to be having the Nino of the century or the millennium…though nobody told Nino.)

        In fact, the neighbour’s horses dropped by and drank from the bucket. But if some scientist in the future needs some drier data, I’ll be his man. It’s about science with one hand on the bucket, and the other hand firmly on…

      • mosomoso

        It is said, but might be a tall tale, that one of the rainfall containers conveniently situated next to the local pub, was regularly filled by regulars on their way home

        tonyb

      • Danny

        Photo of NOAA wooden bucket.

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/picture-climate-why-are-buckets-important-climate-science

        Evaporation as it was drawn up was the least of their problems. Taking the sample at different depths, leaving the water too long in the bucket on deck so it moved towards the ambient temperature, using inaccurate thermometers, were all much bigger considerations.

        It is not a matrix that should be used as a central plank of science until the modern era, although some historic spot measurements taken in scientific expeditions such as The Challenger would have better accuracy to a degree or two.

        Sorry, John K.

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        If it were me, and I’m just tossing this out for fun, I’d sure adjust away from that prehistoric looking buoy and adjust towards that modern looking bucket.

      • Tonyb, out in the wide brown land we don’t bother with receptacles. Maybe the bucket fillers are touring lager louts from your part of the world.

      • Danny

        A couple of years ago I went out with my rowing boat (I live 100 yards from the sea) and took water samples in a container from various depths and measured the temperature after leaving the water in the bucket for various timings.

        A few minutes in the sun raised temperatures in the bucket water dramatically , different depths were different temperatures. locations just yards apart were different temperatures and whether or not the thermometer had been at the correct ambient temperature before measurement also had a big impact. The resultant readings varied by many degrees. Tenths of a degree accuracy? Hmm.

        Anyway, to get to the sea I had to walk through a small area of public gardens in front of a hotel where a marquee had been set up for some forthcoming event.

        Upon emerging back at the top of the steps clutching my bucket, rope and thermometer after an hours work, and very much the worse for wear sartorially speaking, I was confronted by several hundred extremely smartly dressed wedding guests with the bride and groom directly in front of me.

        Murmuring ‘urgent scientific investigations In to sea surface temperatures’ I hastily left as someone commented ‘He must be from the Met office…’

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        “A few minutes in the sun raised temperatures in the bucket water dramatically”……….sounds like quite a good reason to then just make an adjustment and cool the past.

        Hope they invited you in for a pint!

      • This is another example where the defenders of the realm look ridiculous. They go to great lengths to put the imprimatur of good science on it but in the process just destroy what little credibility they had in the first place. I’m still waiting for Gates to tell me how recent OHC warming trends compare to those of 100 years ago. Oh well, I guess I need to stop kicking that dead horse around.

    • They needed a graph, especially with Paris coming up. It was old buckets or nothing. They went with old buckets. Reuse, recycle, as our Green Betters like to say.

      If anyone finds that peculiar, they’ll say it was “apropos theory”. Makes sense, apropos wankery.

  55. Indeed, Tony. What would Feynman say?

  56. Thanks, Judith.

    Its good to see that someone is publicly posting helpful information about questions The House Committee can usefully ask.

  57. FYI, this is the letter that Keith Seitter/AMS sent to Grijalva:
    https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-formal-letters-of-support/letter-to-house-committee-on-natural-resources-on-challenges-to-academic-freedom/

    A very good letter, that I personally appreciate very much

    • A similar letter needs to be sent to Lamar Smith. It is an exact equivalent, and the words still pertain.

      • Jim D – you forget the anonymous NOAA character assassins in the ammo belt.

      • In fact a similar letter was sent by the AMS to Smith. See the main post. The AMS is being consistent in defending scientists against political attacks, whether it is Grijalva (D) or Smith (R). This is the correct neutral stance.

    • Judith, the letter says

      The AMS maintains that peer-review is the appropriate mechanism to assess the validity and quality of scientific research, regardless of the funding sources supporting that research as long as those funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest are fully disclosed.

      which is – IMO – exactly right. So, under what grounds have you decided to side with Lamar Smith? Surely, if there is an issue with Karl et al., it should be sorted out in the peer-reviewed literature, just as this very good letter suggests.

      • I hate to break the news to you Ken, but peer review in climate science is flawed. That’s why Smith and committee(and public) are peering.
        =====================

      • I would be keen to hear if Judith agrees. So, we could solve peer-review and the politicisation of climate science, by having scientists reviewed by partisan politicians?

      • The point is review, so far lacking.
        ==============

      • I don’t think that peer review is the correct response to allegations of undue political pressure being brought to bear on government employees by their supervisors. Of course, it’s a bit ironic, and potentially self-defeating, to try to resolve those questions by political investigation.

        But such are the times in which we live.

      • opluso,
        Except you do not know that to be the case. Plus, even if that were the case (and I really, really do not think it is), one can still resolve the science in the peer-reviewed literature.

      • aTTP:

        My point stands as stated.

        If government managers were accused of sexual harassment, perhaps with the knowledge of political appointees, the distinction between ordinary scientific debate and managerial coercion might be more clear.

        Then again, maybe not. This does seem to be yet another example of red team/blue team squabbling.

      • ATTP: will the peer reviewers get access to the correspondence between authors and outsiders? It’s evident the committee isn’t dealing with the science issues, it seems to be focusing on the likely existence of political drivers.

        My guess is the drivers do exist. The Obama administration seems to have a very Nixonian tendency to put its foot in its mouth.

      • Fernando,

        will the peer reviewers get access to the correspondence between authors and outsiders?

        I’ve no idea, but this would seem to be an argument against it if they could.

        It’s evident the committee isn’t dealing with the science issues, it seems to be focusing on the likely existence of political drivers.

        Indeed, but this isn’t science and – IMO – is consequently irrelevant. If there is a substabtial problem with Karl et al., it could be resolved in the peer-reviewed literature. If there isn’t, then the discussions they had while doing the research are irrelevant.

      • How does possible political influence on the work of government employed climate scientists get solved in the consensus re-defined climate science peer-reviewed literature, kenny?

      • By doing the science to produce a better SST reconstruction. Or, you could smear your way to the top.

      • Heh, ‘if there is a problem with Karl et al’. Ken, we have a problem.
        ===================

      • Dang, should’ve said ‘brobdingnagian problem’.
        ==============

      • ATTP

        For what its worth, I have said many times that if people believe data to be flawed or fraudulent they need to write a peer reviewed paper that proves their point.

        However, there is concern about peer review. For instance how Dr Mann’s hockey stick got through is a source of ceaseless amazement to me. Therefore the peer reviewers need to be known and above board and perhaps there ought to be someone with a different view on the panel?

        If the science presented is irrefutable, no proper scientist is going to refute it, no matter their personal views.

        Can we get to that situation whereby say Homewood and Goddard, both promoters of the ‘hoax’ or ‘fraudulent’ meme come up with a paper that stands scrutiny?

        Perhaps such things might be best in the blogosphere initially, so everyone from all viewpoints can freely have an input and then if it stands muster it can go for more conventional peer review.

        tonyb

      • tonyb,
        If someone can find an example other than Mann and his hockey stick, I might take your concerns more seriouslty, but thank you for them anyway.

      • tonyb, Peer review may pretend to be anonymous but it is very frequently not. Once you are high enough in the pecking order, you can learn the identity of the reviewers if you wish, because you know someone who knows the reviewers. The only question is how long you have to wait or how determined you are.

      • Go ahead, Ken, throw away the most influential example; the rest can be jettisoned in detail.

        The Crook’t Stick has been influential to both sides of the debate; convincing to the credulous, revelatory to the rest.
        =================

      • ATTP

        I used Dr Mann as his work was so iconic and influential and every other climate science paper pales into insignificance besides it. (except possibly Dr Hansen’s 1988 paper)

        Having looked at SST’s and the Arctic and other topics related to historic temperatures there are certainly other peer reviewed papers I would query. But none are in the same league as the HS

        tonyb

      • That ATTP is a piece of work, isn’t he, Kim?

        The Hockey Stick peer reviewed nonsense-on-stilts remains cited to this day. You need to own it, ATTP. That’s the quality of science you support, not the rest of us normals.

        And as for other examples of peer-review failure a la Hockey Stick, well, gee, off the top of my head:
        – Steig and his stupid West Antarctica-on-fire nonsense,
        – Marcott et al and their ridiculous hockey-stick-in-oz guff
        – Camille Parmesan and her nonsense about butterflies moving down a mountain or up it, who cares.
        – Cowtan & Way with it’s fictional temp history
        – Cawley et al and the pathetically inept attack on Loehle (which was itself wrong)

        Mann’s idiotic bristlecones still get cited in climate science peer review.

        Climate science is, quite simply, (pace Prof Curry) mostly practiced by an unprofessional claque of incompetent numpties who would not pass muster in the private competitive sector, hence they are found exclusively in academia and the public sector.

    • This all fine and good but has no bearing on the current situation.

      Why is this a bananas vs grapefruit comparison?

      “sends a chilling message to all academic researchers.”
      1. These aren’t college professors. They are government employees. The college researchers have at least some claim of academic freedom, and are not “government servants”, and not owned lock stock and barrel by the federal government.

      Publicly singling out specific researchers based
      on perspectives they have expressed

      vs
      Please provide Internal and external e-mails, letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications, from, to, and between: government employees, external consultants, experts, advisors, or other parties
      2. Not singling out anyone. Smith is requesting data from the agency that in theory reports to him. Not calling out anyone by name.

      implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources
      3. Grijalva was guilty of an obvious fishing expedition to smear the researchers. Grijalva wasn’t interested in their work product or how they came to their conclusions. He was fishing for information on other things they have done outside their government funded activities.

      This is like someone who contracted with me for some software – requesting source code written for someone else. It is inappropriate.

      On the other hand Smith is asking government employees about jobs he is paying them to do. Claiming that your boss can’t ask you “what the hell are you doing?” is insane.

      • PA: On the other hand Smith is asking government employees about jobs he is paying them to do. Claiming that your boss can’t ask you “what the hell are you doing?” is insane.

        I agree with that.

    • From their letter, “The AMS maintains that peer-review is the appropriate mechanism to assess the validity and quality of scientific research”.
      This says nothing about distinguishing whether the research is done by academics or government employees. All published science is covered by this phrase. The appropriate avenue for challenges is not emails and correspondence. That should only be a last resort if results were not reproducible from the data, or the data was not traceable to a valid source. The first step is to see if the paper says what the data says. As far as I can tell, no one has even done that part yet despite being given all the sources to validate. Or maybe some skeptics have already validated the paper with its data, and choose to keep quiet for some reason. It is notable that certain data-oriented skeptics have not weighed in yet, five months after this was published.

      • Jim D I think the first step is to see if the govt worker is a dispassionate worker with no political agenda. Not the case here as is apparent by the refusal to disclose disclosable communications which are already subject to disclosure as a matter of law.

      • They have it exactly backwards. They are launching an investigation even before any sign of wrong science. Next they will be doing it even before the papers are written.

      • Before any sign of wrong science? What? How can you type such guff?

        You post here regularly. Karl et al was revealed as a sad flawed joke the minute it got published. You know this because you post here regularly. Including in the Karl thread.

        Karl et al is a bit of a poster child for wrong science.

      • So far, everything the skeptics have said has been wrong, mainly because they have not even tried to repeat the study and they don’t understand the data. Repeat the study, and then complain. Not, read the conclusion and launch a knee-jerk investigation, which is what this is. Congressmen listen to the wrongheaded accusations from one side and don’t try to understand the responses that correct the errors in them.

      • The Congressional oversight committees can investigate any time they smell something fishy, yimmy. Do you think that it’s a good idea for allegedly innocent subjects of Congressional oversight investigations to go with the stonewalling option?

        Judith: “Smith’s request has a very different context: concern about the quality of a specific data set of great policy relevance that was touted by NOAA in a big press release; and concern that Karl in particular has been playing politics with NOAA data.

        I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one.”

        It looks like some NOAA insiders have done blowed da whistle on “Karl in particular”.

      • The data is there. Find what is wrong with it. A scientist, government or academic, is allowed to use existing data and draw conclusions from it. This study could have been done by a university or foreign government. Would they have come under scrutiny? The data is the data, and who does the study does not matter.

      • Odds are very good that Professor Curry’s inside whistleblower is a disgruntled conservative, probably not very good at his job, who was passed over for promotion. Sour gapes. Happens all the time.

      • Chances are Judith would take it very differently if the government employee being investigated was Spencer (emails, etc.) as they try to figure out how the heck his privately held UAH algorithm shows no El Nino yet. This is so far from other data sources, it makes the “pause” look like small potatoes.

      • Stop the whinging, little dudes. The investigation is ON! Mr. “Karl in particular” is in deep dookey.

      • As the climategate emails made abundantly clear, peer review is a frickin’ joke.

        The hockey stick and the butterfly lady got through peer review.

        If peer review doesn’t reject obvious stupidity it doesn’t have any value.

        There should be a red team hostile review to accomplish what peer review is supposed to.

    • Didn’t Georgia Tech comply with Grijalva’s request?

  58. It is becoming more and more likely the climate issue will taken up in courts of law. Some background on what to expect when that happens:
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/objection-asserting-facts-not-in-evidence/

  59. Given how slowly the wheels of justice turn, I guess it’s probably too late now for someone to receive a presidential pardon on these matters before Barrack Obama leaves office.

    Or can he pardon someone in the middle of due process if they ‘fess up?

  60. Pingback: Climate Apocalypse Crusade Stymied by Inconvenient Hiatus | al fin next level

  61. The AMS continues to disappoint me. There is concern in Congress–shared by a huge number of taxpayers–that there might be undue political influence on a scientific matter that could have enormous economic consequences. Why is the AMS not concerned about such political influence? Shouldn’t the AMS be *more* concerned about the intimidation that NOAA scientists might feel from those in the executive branch who directly control their careers? What other way would Congress be able to investigate such political influence/intimidation?

    I left the AMS soon after reading their policy statement on climate change and will not return until they begin to exhibit something other than this foolish and transparent kowtowing to a political agenda.

    .

  62. I wouldn’t trust the AMS as their editors have allowed catastrophic climate articles based on half truths a la Enron http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html

    • Not surprising that Thomas Karl was also a co-author of the paper that promoted the bogus Parmesan AMS climate catastrophe paper. It appears Karl has been manipulating data for years!

  63. Pingback: NOAA vs Lamar Smith | …and Then There's Physics

  64. IDIOT’S GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING

    Knowing that there is no escape from

    THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS

    – and which cannot be overruled by edicts from whoever, be it Dalai Lama, Pope, Obama, Merkel, IMF, UN, EU, IPCC, the Supreme Court, EPA, or anyone, it is high time to remember Alexius Meinong:

    TRUTH IS A PURELY HUMAN CONSTRUCT BUT FACTS ARE ETERNAL.

    My results of trying to follow this tenet are:

    In the light of this: http://tinyurl.com/pvzva68
    I calculated this: http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4
    Resulting in this: http://tinyurl.com/naexuho
    …and this: http://tinyurl.com/nbfc2qo
    …and finding this: http://tinyurl.com/pufzloc

    Best introductions to critical thinking on this subject I could find.

    Meanwhile, SUSTAINABILITY is decoded, defined and published at
    http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/CleanEnergyPundit

    • I don’t like that use of the word “globalist” in the intro on your site. I’d rather that applied to those who see virtue in free trade and widespread exchange of information and ideas without erection of artificial and divisive constraints; openness and diversity rather than a centrally-controlled omnipotent bureaucratic body which seeks to dictate what is good and proper rather than encouraging individuals to seek their own understanding.

  65. Judith, You may have seen it, but our friend Ken Rice has a post up on this and there is the usual questioning of your motives and even a commenter reference to “Aunt …” which I thought everyone had agreed was a smear. It shows i think that you are right that this field has become perhaps hopelessly politicized.

  66. Since the admin of this website is working, no hesitation very quickly
    it will be renowned, due to its quality contents.

  67. Pingback: Folkevalgte i USA skal granske suspekte klimatemperaturer | Klimarealistene

  68. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #204 | Watts Up With That?

  69. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Excerpt from JC Refections :

    I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one.

    The politicization of climate science has gotten extreme. I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation, but Congressional oversight and investigation into what is going on in government labs does not seem inappropriate under these circumstances.

    It’s a sad state of affairs that climate science has come to this.

  70. Please, please your candid comments here may help humanity.

    1. “Is there convincing evidence for AGW?” https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_convincing_evidence_of_AGW

    2. “Geoethics: the principles of ethics in Natural Sciences”
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283641399_Geoethics_the_principles_of_ethics_in_Natural_Sciences

  71. I am disturbed – perhaps upset or angry is more to the point – by the witch-hunt on the part of the “Scientific Establishment” which consists of alarmists and mimics that of the anti-communist witch-hunt of the early 1950’s. Your summary brings it out to the forefront….and I find it shameful that accusations thrown out by the alarmists at deniers are in fact just another tool in their toolbox to mask their own conflicted interests.

  72. Pingback: satellites disprove warming connection … | pindanpost