JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Secret science? What’s NOAA hiding?

NOAA, Karl, The Pause, Congress

It used to be that scientists were supposed to publish their methods, discuss their reasoning, and point out the weaknesses of their work. Now, it’s confidential.

The House Science Committee in the US is demanding with a subpoena that NOAA release internal communications related to the Karl et al study (that tried to remove the “pause” in global temperatures.) NOAA is refusing saying:

It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”

Yes. It’s been longstanding since morning tea on Tuesday.

The new post-modern science conversation:

SCIENTIST 1:  So why did Karl et al adjust the ocean buoy readings by a figure that is so uncertain as to be meaningless?  From Kennedy et al  0.12 ± 1.7°C. What were you thinking?

KARL ET AL and co:  snip [That's confidential. Stop this now. We're feeling harrassed!]

What is the world coming to if congress succeeds in exposing objective, rational discussion about thermometers?

 

h/t Leigh, Marvin

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (134 votes cast)
Secret science? What's NOAA hiding?, 9.5 out of 10 based on 134 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/og6qnvb

126 comments to Secret science? What’s NOAA hiding?

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    This could be a turning point. The publicity over this affair will be hard to hide. NOAA is going to have to accede to the subpoena eventually. Climategate II?

    385

    • #
      Planning Engineer

      Depends on what they might say.

      If there is nothing out of line in the communications, it will likely be perceived and perhaps correctly so, that they were taking a stand on principle. (Although I don’t really buy that there is net value in keeping such things confidential).

      If the documents do not reflect well on the underlying “scientific” process – I hope it helps us reach a turning point. I’m afraid however that the documents will look sketchy but be “explained” away with the same mechanisms we saw during climategate.

      222

      • #
        Spetzer86

        Several NOAA hard drives holding all the e-mails are already malfunctioning. Can’t you hear them?

        442

      • #
        Michael Harris

        Yes, that’s what I’m afraid of also. We should look for the information routinely not making any assumptions, simply business as usual.

        30

    • #
      ianl8888

      Not unexpected at all

      OBummer will protect NOAA until the next Presidential term. I expect Hilary to win, when said protection will be doubled until the House Science Committee loses interest and meanders off elsewhere. The MSM will sideline this to mute any public interest

      The vast majority of the general populace has no interest in “arcane science”. They have long been propagandised to believe that climatic Armageddon is almost upon us – their only interest is to have someone else pay for it

      The CAGW activists, the Greenies, know this very well indeed …

      296

      • #
        Don

        I have sent correspondence to the committee chair to further encourage this effort, but I am doubtful that documents will ever be released. The US Congress has subpoena power, but nobody to enforce it.

        264

      • #
        David Maddison

        I am afraid Clinton might win as well. Illegal Saudi campaign funding will guarantee it. Her term will see the final destruction of the US that Obama has deliberately set in motion.

        243

      • #
        Glenn999

        ian
        my god man
        “I expect Hilary to win…”
        power of positive thinking and all that!

        Now listen here young man, chin up, batten down and ready about!

        162

        • #
          ianl8888

          Wot ?

          I’m afraid I don’t even know the correct term for the pointy end of the boat :) :)

          But I do have very considerable experience of reality – Polyanna was hopelessly wrong

          30

          • #
            Glenn999

            Whether it is for sport or battle
            always approach the arena with confidence

            What is it they call it when preparation meets opportunity?

            30

    • #
      Bill

      I am completely unsurprised as this is just another stunt by Obama, who clearly hates to be held to account for anything, and NOAA’s head takes his direction from the pres not congress.

      202

  • #
    Chris F

    Stop the money flow to NOAA immediately until the emails are released. A few thousand employees not getting their pay they were expecting should start a nice little revolt.

    524

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      That’s the strategy that needs to be implemented.

      But perhaps we need to wait for the Presidential election to get out of the way?

      112

    • #
      gai

      No such luck
      Published time: 30 Oct, 2015 US Senate passes budget, debt limit bill sends to President Obama

      The US Senate passed a bill on Friday that will extend government borrowing authority until March 15, 2017. This also includes a two-year budget plan, which will increase military and domestic spending to the tune of $80 billion.

      US President Barack Obama said on Friday that he intends to sign the deal overnight, as soon as it reaches his desk…

      80

      • #
        Don

        The budget plan is just the boundaries for future spending bills (actual appropriations). Let us hope that future appropriations clearly call for the release of all background materials for studies sponsored by the public.

        40

  • #

    And why in bloody hell are there only 2 comments above mine? All of the people who comment on WUWT and Curry’s site should be here, expressing their outrage towards NOAA. All of the honest scientists in the world should be here to demand the immediate acquiescence of NOAA, along with their abject apology to all professional scientists, including me. The President of the United States and all of the “leaders” of the free world should resign in disgrace. Where is the sudden, fiery vengeance on these INSANE DEMONS who seek to rule SCIENCE? Damn the Insane Left, who are protecting them and subverting human freedom in general and truthseeking in particular (and this from one who voted Democratic for President through 8 straight presidential elections, from 1976 through 2004…until they went insane in 2008). Bleep the curse words in the above at your everlasting peril. I do not participate in all the pretty “debates” and “alternative theories” precisely because there is no recognized power or authority standing up for what I KNOW to be the truth, and demanding that heads roll because of it: There is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists.

    805

  • #
    ExWarmist

    I feel a Streisand effect moment coming on in 4… 3… 2… 1…

    Then there is always the famous Phil Jones excuse.

    From Climate Audit: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.”

    It’s shocking that the careers of MMGW Climate Apologists Scientists should be protected ahead of the advancement of human understanding of the climate.

    574

  • #
    Alec aka Daffy Duck

    NOAA is part of the department of commerce… Essentially government employees are telling the government that the government has no right to know what the government is doing and why the government is doing it.

    411

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    And on this side of the Pacific,

    What’s CSIRO hiding.

    From a recent post by David Maddison this is a look at how the premier science organisation in Australia presents its data:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative-model-and-why-it-solves-so-many-major-problems/#comment-1760173

    Follow the link and look at the 2000 year CO2 graph just past the half way mark.

    Obviously a proxy superimposed on a more “modern” CO2 assessment method.

    It would be very interesting to see ALL of the data on which this CO2 plot and the others were made.

    Reminds me of another famous graph purporting to show how CO2 levels have been getting out of control recently.

    KK

    263

    • #

      KK: There is nothing different to measurements from other sites and the way they are combined with ice core raw data.

      The open question remains, if the ice core data are showing the real picture at a given time in history.

      But even it is true, it is not dangerous and the temperature data do not fit – unless you adjust them.

      163

      • #

        A new analysis of satellite data suggest that snow accumulation in Antarctica is outpacing the meltdown of glaciers on the frozen continent, at least for now. The findings of the the new NASA research differ from other recent studies, which have found that, overall, Antarctica is losing land ice.
        Instead, the NASA scientists said the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001, slowing to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. http://summitcountyvoice.com/2015/10/31/antarctica-snowfall-may-be-outpacing-glacier-melt/

        10

    • #
      David Maddison

      It’s interesting how their figures for NOx and CH4 follow the same pattern as CO2.

      70

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      It occurs to me that one of the best weapons we have against the CAGW mob is the need for obsessive secrecy. Rarely does anything good come from secrecy in govt.

      The mug punters dont need to understand science to undetstand that there is systemic stonewalling to see the data, and the Aust public never trusts the govt anyway, and never will, so there is a significant advantage to be had by pointing out that science requires laying all cards on the table and discussiing things.

      Its also worth pointing out the likelyhood of such secrecy will lead to even more tax and higher costs of living, as it highly probable.

      01

  • #

    Understanding why people bring out scientistic papers with wrong results or data.

    A) They know that they are wrong and they deceive the public on purpose.

    B) They are fooled by something or someone.
    -Starting with the wrong assumptions and on that try to go on scientifically
    -Being obsessed or blinded by an idea and closing their to unconvienient facts
    -???

    C) Possibly some know that they are wrong but they dare mot to change bc/of shame or loosing funds or employment /income.

    (Which is basically the same as A). But there is a difference. A) act like criminals, knowing that they are wrong and using it as a tool. C) know that they are wrong, that they should change, but they dare not to do it out of various reasons.

    The same scheme applies to politicians and to media people.

    I think a lot of B and C persons are around. How we can help them to get right?

    1. Having clear facts.
    2. Having a polite manner w/out anger and rant.
    3. Having a lot of repetiton of the facts in various ways and channels.
    4. Building golden bridges so that they don’t loose their face.

    This seems to me the only way to convince them. It’s not a matter of facts alone; there is also alot of psychology involved.

    405

  • #
    john karajas

    I wouldn’t call it “climate science” rather “pseudoscience”. I won’t bother with crude language here, but I think you can imagine what I’m saying!

    304

    • #

      Name-calling is no polite way nor a golden bridge. Even if the science lost the right way, we should not rant about it.

      Think about yourself, if someone is calling you a Pseudo-something. Your hormones will work, you blood pressure will go up, and you are ready for flight or fight.

      813

      • #
        el gordo

        Johannes we are in a war zone, there is no time for polite conversation, the media, politicians and scientists have got it wrong and are our enemies.

        The Klimatariat is behaving very badly indeed, ironically global cooling has just begun and its going to be hard keeping a lid on it.

        Nevertheless the warmists will continue hiding behind the precautionary principle (having done away with due diligence) its criminal behavior and they should be brought to book.

        251

        • #
          Mark D.

          Gordo, you have a point. Remember though, that the opposition has been in “war mode” since Malthus. To them dirty tricks are essential to winning their war and they are good at it due to experience.

          61

          • #
            Matty

            Like that old one about arguing with idiots
            “”Never argue with stupid people, they will only drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”
            as Mark Twain once said: ‘Don’t believe all you read on the Internet because I totally didn’t say that’

            00

        • #
          clive

          Amen to that.

          10

    • #
      Richard

      I think most ‘science’ these days is just pseudoscience masquerading as science. Climate science is not the only science that has fallen victim to politicization and corruption. The powers-that-be what to dictate reality to us wholesale and climate science is just one small aspect of this all-encompassing mind-control on a world-wide scale. Sure, I probably sound like a conspiracy theorist, and that’s fine – but I believe the rampant politicization of science today is organized and intended to create an uninformed and more pliable society. The uneducated and ill-informed and more easily controlled. There’s a recent video with Monckton on YouTube called “One Year Left Of Freedom” explaining why AGW is being foisted onto the public, and it’s eye-opening. Monckton and James Delingpole and the only ones with the balls big enough to be talking about a one-world government and Agenda 21.

      384

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      John, you are spot on. And, this chap agrees with you:

      Richard Horton, Editor “The Lancet“:

      ‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.’

      http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

      260

      • #
        Bob Malloy


        Also from Richard Horton:

        Richard Horton, then editor of The Lancet, contributed a guest editorial for the Medical Journal of Australia (Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion and crack-up; MJA 2000; 172: 148-149) in which he wrote:

        “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

        40

    • #
      TdeF

      Political science. Science determined by politics with the data filtered, homogenized, picked to create the desired political effect.

      Doesn’t it strike everyone that the media are left, the public service is left including NOAA, the CSIRO, BOM and the reported climate science is extreme left? If you want to know someone’s views on Climate Change/Global Warming, just ask for their political views.

      In the Green view, nothing mankind does is any good and the farmers, manufacturers and miners and capitialists are the problem. All hail communist China, the first communist state to master government run capitalism. Besides, who cares about pollution in China?

      According to Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Climate body, we should destroy the ballot box and follow China. First we have to bankrupt the West and fund the UN with carbon taxes.

      160

      • #
        TdeF

        Take CO2. With 2% of the world’s output of CO2, Australia is supposed to pay a punitive tax. Not fix the problem, just pay. Now that means 98% of the new CO2 is from overseas, but Australians should pay tax to China via Europe when China is the producer of 50% of the CO2 and Europe 10%?

        If that makes any sense, it is only because people believe without thinking that pollution stays where it is generated. They also believe that CO2 generated by man hangs around forever, as the IPCC say. So Australia can reduce its CO2 in isolation. This is as crazy as thinking man is so significant that we control atmospheric CO2 levels in the first place. All of AGW is based on instinctive science like this. Heavy things fall faster science. Who needs real scientists when you have Tim Flannery and Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize? Political science.

        190

  • #
    toorightmate

    If only the many discretions of the Oh Bummer administration were this tame.

    152

  • #
    FIN

    Here’s all the data you are looking for here:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus/

    Go to: Download the data via FTP.

    All freely available.
    —————-
    All the emails? The inhouse communication? Don’t think so. — Jo

    827

    • #
      FIN

      It’s about science right? So you have the data, so you can check the science. Emails are irrelevant if the data stacks up. Isn’t that what we’re trying to do here, check that the science is correct?

      You know that replicating the process is a lot more than just “data”. Besides all their emails are public property, and they are upstanding experts right? So why hide what should be supplied upon FOI anyhow? — Jo

      931

      • #
        FIN

        This sums it up really. I imagine no-one trusts the motives of those trying to obtain correspondence between colleagues. Just a last gasp fishing expedition before Paris.

        “Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the Committee,” NOAA said in a statement. “It is the end product of exchanges between scientists – the detailed publication of scientific work and the data that underpins the authors’ findings– that are key to understanding the conclusions reached.”

        ["Frank discourse", and "Collusion", are very close cousins. Especially when conducted behind closed doors. And we know of precedents, do we not?] Fly

        313

        • #
          FIN

          I guess what people are really worried about is being quoted completely out of context as happened during in the last fiasco, “climategate”. You can hardly blame them for that …

          ["Quotes out of context", can only occur when the context is not explicit. Those involved have not lifted their game. Had they done so, they might be better trusted.] Fly

          413

          • #
            gai

            Resistance to disclosing the e-mails is because the e-mails contain evidence of wrong doing PERIOD! We Americans learned how crucial this type of correspondence is in the Watergate mess. If a US president was forced to hand over private recording that implicated him then these GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES don’t have a leg to stand on!

            ***********

            The Climategate e-mails were NOT ‘QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT!’ The e-mails show corruption to the point even Monbiot apologies and calls for Phil Jones resignation. The Climategate e-mails also made it very clear that this was an international political issue and the corrupt scientists would be protected by the politicians and the MSM across the world. That point is the most scary in MHO because it means our politicians not only answer to someone else and not the voters, they answer to interests outside their own country!!!

            Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues

            Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122) [I did not make link to the e-mail live]

            Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

            Note all of the issues have a DIRECT LINK to the actual e-mail so people can judge for themselves. The above two are darn clear these are NOT honest scientists!

            Further explanations and a link to all the e-mails HERE.

            61

      • #
        Manfred

        …if the data stacks up.”

        A breathtakingly fatuous remark. Extraordinary.

        163

    • #
      PeterH

      Is that raw data or adjusted data?

      112

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is not just the data, as you well know, FIN

      It is also about the methods used, in the process of translating that data into meaningful results, leading to a set of conclusions, that are replicable by independent observers.

      You are obviously being disingenious, in just pointing to “the data”. Even readers who only remember first-year high-school science, are prone to asking, “Why?”

      322

      • #
        GregS

        Exactly Rereke. Modern science since Newton was founded on the principles that if you propose something and can’t supply sufficient information about how you did it such that others can replicate and confirm the work then it didn’t happen!

        Whenever I see a published article in any field and it is not able to be supported by demonstration of the data and methods used to derive the outcome then as far as I am concerned it isn’t based on truth.

        FIN is just making a feint or slight of hand by saying the data is there if he can’t also point to the methodology used to come to the conclusion that leads to the outcome published by NOAA. Maybe it is just my nature but I would rather believe my lying eyes than these scientists with activist leanings.

        101

    • #
      AndyG55

      Poor Fin, still trying to defend the indefensible, and support the unsupportable.

      173

  • #
    patrick healy

    There is nothing new here – as pointed out above in the Phil Jones episode.
    The UK met office, the New Zeland met people and others have all refused to show us their Mann made global warming cooking recipes for as long as I can remember.

    433

  • #
    Ruairi

    N.O.A.A. should respond with pride,
    In revealing their methods worldwide,
    And their verified cause,
    For rejecting the ‘pause’,
    Unless they have something to hide.

    463

    • #
      Manfred

      Exactly Ruairi! Congratulations on making a key observation. Real scientists have magnificent egos, often hyper-inflated by intellect and ability. They may well be humble and appear self-absorbed, or they may be showmen and women, but above this and all else they LIVE to see their work widely read and understood by all, their methods saluted, replicated and cited (for the right reasons) and in time, institutions, roads, processes and hypotheses, children and dogs named in their honour, usually after their publicly acclaimed Noble.

      As a very lowly scientist, I assure you that at your peril you invite me to talk about my work, methods, discourse, challenges, failures, emails, dreams, spontaneous insights and the hard earned small successes. It is more than likely you will have to find a way to end the conversation before you forget to breathe with the boredom of it or simply die of old age.

      The position of Karl and Petersen is counter-intuitive and the idea that “It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions” is a downright lie. They should be bursting with enthusiasm.

      The broad circumstances, discussion and thought processes around significant discoveries or moments in science are often quite well and widely known, sometimes far better than the detailed methodology, which more usually occupies the province of scientific scrutiny. We are however dealing with climate ‘science’ and the vested eco-marxist interests of Big Green et al. We all know the self-evident, and that they betray themselves at every turn. They cannot be trusted because they do not invite trust. They prefer diktat to discourse, confabulation to co-operation.

      The tax-payer and their elected representatives have an absolute right to explore every nook and cranny occupied these NOAA bureaucrats and pseudo ‘scientists’, to know and understand the nuance of their every thought and discussion while on the public dime. In the knowledge that they are potential key drivers of national policy at the present Karl and Petersen must surely accept that they have an incontestable duty and obligation to recurrently and publicly demonstrate their integrity by remaining both transparent and available.

      It’s beyond high time that budding demi-gods such as these and the institutions that clothe them are reacquainted with their true job description: public servant.

      271

      • #
        Retired now

        “As a very lowly scientist, I assure you that at your peril you invite me to talk about my work, methods, discourse, challenges, failures, emails, dreams, spontaneous insights and the hard earned small successes. It is more than likely you will have to find a way to end the conversation before you forget to breathe with the boredom of it or simply die of old age.”

        I love this. When I was researching this was exactly how I felt.

        In my first years as a researcher we had an active department and loved or dreaded Wednesday mornings when we each in turn had to present our research to have it assessed, questioned and reviewed by our peers and those above us. It was harrowing but essential because it meant that we had our work taken apart at several stages long before it got to the stage of being published. It made for robust work and results and we became adept at addressing critiques or providing counter arguments from every perspective. These sessions saved many a researcher from hasty conclusions. Though sadly a number of good projects were not progressed because they weren’t politically acceptable.

        140

        • #
          gai

          YES!

          The best company I ever worked for did this on a much larger scale. Before the plant was retooled for a new product everyone from the lab techs, Phds and marketing were gathered in an auditorium and every aspect from formulation to process to QC to marketing was presented and ripped apart. On more than one occassion this process saved the company millions of dollars as major problems were found BEFORE the production line was built.

          Yet as Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said we are going to totally restructure civilization WITHOUT full disclosure of everything that went into the design and the reasons why restructing is needed.

          This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.

          On top of that, based on the ‘evidence of Karl et al.’ the citizens of the USA will be fined a trillion dollars a year!

          As one of those to be fined I darn well want to know what the G*& D^*!!@ evidence is and how it was arrived at.

          60

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    Not responding to the legitimately issued subpoena is criminal contempt of congress under 2USC192. And the emails are also subject to FoIA. Rep. Smith has several options for moving forward that Obama will have great difficulty blocking. And knows that Karl, Peterson, Huang et. al. knowingly hid the 0.1C +/-1.7 equivalent to Kennedy. And knows the refusal means it is probably worse that just that.

    401

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      If NOAA was running on private money I could be a little more sympathetic to their assertion about having the right to withhold internal correspondence. But NOAA is running on the taxpayer’s money and every last document they produce is public property. So unless it legitimately pertains to national security, which is extremely doubtful in this case, not just a congressional committee but the people have the right to see what they’re doing. Period.

      It’s not only contempt of congress, it’s contempt for the people who pay their salaries. But as long as Obama controls the justice department It’ll be impossible to pry those documents loose from NOAA’s hands because the congress has no enforcement capability. Unfortunately neither do the courts. The whole thing depends on honesty and we don’t have that honesty from an important agency of government. :-(

      381

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Imagine what would happen if my boss had asked me for some of my working notes and I refused to give them to him. How long would I remain employed?

        361

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        For a long time I’ve been building a list of federal government departments and agencies I would eliminate if I could. Then I would start over with anything I cut out that’s really useful or important and build up the necessary organizations with a builtin necessity to publish what they’re doing, a kind of annual report to the people.

        In fact, wouldn’t it be a great thing if every department of government, state as well as federal was required to make such an annual report? After all, aren’t we the stockholders in all this?

        But I wonder how many would read it. :-(

        202

        • #
          gnomish

          stockholder?
          you are the stock.
          another eloi whinging about how the morlocks don’t do it the right way.
          (hint: there is no right way to be a happy meal)

          81

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            How about, we are the stakeholders? And a lot is at stake. :-)

            50

            • #
              Yonniestone

              Roy I just clarified things for gnomish but my comments in moderation.

              Mods apologies for not using #@$%&*, I need F$#@%^g coffee…… :(

              81

          • #
            Yonniestone

            You show zero ability to comprehend what a taxpayer gives to a majority elected entity that is supposed to spend that money as promised on the platform they were initially elected on.

            You then use a sci-fi movie analogy in a loose attempt to explain this, backed up with a modern humorous adage.

            Show some [snip] respect buckwheat.

            60

            • #
              gnomish

              i’m bound to respect your rights, of course.
              and it’s wonderful that you still feel allowed to exercise your liberty to speak.

              what i do have zero ability to comprehend is how come someone repeatedly ‘gives to’ (submits to) a ‘majority elected entity’ (consensus) that ‘is supposed to’ (does not) spend that money ‘as promised’… (like last time and the time before that and so on…)
              and still this someone expects a different outcome.

              [img]http://i.imgur.com/iYOS3sv.png[/img]

              20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                gnomish,

                If I understand you correctly you’re asking why do we continue to pay the taxes. If I’m wrong please clarify.

                In the meantime, we have no choice but to pay the tax. They take it out of our paycheck. We may get some of it back if too much is withheld but to get it we have to file an annual tax return, both federal and state, which we’re required to do anyway. Failure to file is a criminal offense that comes with jail time if you’re convicted.

                If it was possible to do it and you wanted to have a fight with the IRS or the state you could refuse to pay the tax. That’s only a civil matter that risks no jail time. But they have broad latitude to seize your bank account and your wages or salary. It also carries civil penalties if you fail to have something close to the right amount of tax withheld or do not make adequate periodic payments to the IRS. So in the end you cannot fight the tax by not paying it either.

                Fighting with the IRS and the state tax collector is futile for another reason. They don’t make tax law, they only collect what the law says is due. They have no more power to change the tax code than I have. They do provably misuse their ability to literally persecute individuals and groups not in favor with the administration in DC and I’m sure you must have heard at least something about the current IRS scandal.

                I cannot understand the voter’s reluctance to rebel and elect better representatives and a better president. But this time around a rebellion at the polls is brewing. So we shall see. However, I’m not overly hopeful.

                In the meantime, the words reach people and have a chance of causing them to think about what’s going on.

                :-)

                30

        • #
          Dennis

          Thanks mate, I will read it later, do you happen to have a copy of the latest sports results?

          30

  • #
    rah

    If it is paid for by the tax payer it then belongs to the tax payer and there can be no legitimate legal reason, other than national security, for withholding information which the tax payer paid for.
    All that is being asked is that NOAA show their work and their rational for their methods and the way that arrived at that rational. They OWE us American tax payers that and they have no legitimate claim for confidentiality in their work when it is we that are paying for their positions and the product they produce for us.

    281

    • #
      gai

      Correct RAH,

      Also they do not have a leg to stand on after the attacks on Willie Soon and other scientists. Tell me how in heck they can refuse to disclose GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES activities in the ‘Most Transparent Government EVAH!’ while demanding private citizens like Willie Soon disclose all?

      The Nuts and Bolts of the lead-up to this cat-fight.

      Democrats call for information from seven climate testifiers’ universities Yes you read that correctly, Universities are getting called on by elected officials to disclose private info about University employees.

      ….The New York Times incited this climate-science street fight in a Sunday, 22 February, front-page article above the fold. Members of Congress widened it….

      By midweek, another New York Times article had summarized developments:

      In letters sent to seven universities on Tuesday, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change.

      From the Senator Ed Markey website:

      Markey, Boxer, Whitehouse Query Fossil Fuel Companies, Climate Denial Organizations on Science Funding
      Wednesday, February 25, 2015

      100 letters sent to unearth extent of climate denial-for-hire programs

      WASHINGTON (February 25, 2015) – Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today sent letters to 100 fossil fuel companies, trade groups, and other organizations to determine whether they are funding scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution, and whether the funded scientists fail to disclose the sources of their funding in scientific publications or in testimony to legislators.

      This investigation follows the revelations regarding one of the chief climate denial researchers, Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, from documents released by Greenpeace showing that Soon received more than $1 million from ExxonMobil, Southern Company, and others to produce what he termed “deliverables” to push back on climate science or carbon-cutting policies in papers or Congressional testimony. Soon did not disclose this funding to peer-reviewed scientific journals that require such disclosure.

      The letters from Senators Markey, Boxer and Whitehouse ask the companies and other organizations about any funded research efforts related to climate change and the wide range of related issues over the last ten years. The letters also ask for the names of researchers, whether restrictions or terms were put on the requests, and results from the agreements including any publications or other materials.

      “For years we’ve known that fossil fuel interests have sought to block action on climate change and have denied the science. This investigation will help to determine who is funding these denial-for-hire operations and whether those who are funded by these fossil fuel interests are keeping their funders’ identities secret from the public and legislators,” said Senator Markey, Ranking Member of the Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee. “Corporate special interests shouldn’t be able to secretly peddle the best junk science money can buy.”

      “We’ve known for many years that the tobacco industry supported phony science claiming that smoking does not cause cancer. Now it’s time for the fossil fuel industry to come clean about funding climate change deniers,” said Senator Boxer, Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

      “The news about Willie Soon is further confirmation that the fossil fuel industry has taken a page out of the tobacco playbook by bankrolling scientists to cast false doubt on the existence of climate change,” said Senator Whitehouse, Ranking Member of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee. “The American people deserve to know more about this self-serving effort to distort the facts and prevent action on this issue, and I hope these letters will help.”

      An example of one of the 100 letters sent is available HERE and a full list of recipients is included below….

      ‎The three Senators ask for answers to be given by April 3, 2015….

      Corporate special interests shouldn’t secretly peddle the best junk science $ can buy #climate http://t.co/vIaplUUuSa pic.twitter.com/PdLFG8I52c
      — Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) February 25, 2015
      http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-boxer-whitehouse-query-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-denial-organizations-on-science-funding

      The actual truth of the matter:

      …In late February, 2015, Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon was accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal. The accusation was false, but it was repeated by liberal reporters….

      * Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source.

      * Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.

      * The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years.

      * By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

      * Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.

      https://www.heartland.org/willie-soon

      161

    • #
      gnomish

      what you gave up is no longer yours.
      that’s how it is when you give it up.

      your life, your liberty, the product of your mind and the product of your labor-
      you relinquished them already.
      you are not ready to reclaim them so you whine.
      that will not regain what you so lightly abandoned and you know it.

      just say ‘moo’ and move down the chute.

      81

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves” is often credited to American broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow (1909-1965).

        The saying means that the electorate cannot be “sheep” or they will be taken over by “wolves” (such as a totalitarian dictatorship).

        “A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves” has been credited to French philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) since at least 1949. It is probable that de Jouvenel originated the saying.

        90

  • #
    ARW

    rah – I fear that the old quaint assumption that the public servants work for taxpayers is no longer applicable. It is becoming abundantly clear that we the taxpayers solely exist to sustain them and special government sanctioned projects that have no basis is reality and in many cases are used to push agendas. We no longer have any control over the how our taxes are distributed. It sort of all changed when government started to referring to taxes paid as “government revenue”. That phrase makes me want to puke.

    241

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      That may be the way it appears to work right now. But we desperately need to change it back to that quaint notion that public servants work for the taxpayers.

      Otherwise we’ll remain serfs in our own country. And I don’t like that one little bit.

      280

  • #
    Tom O

    I can say only this with regards to NOAA “stonewalling” on emails and other material between government workers. Each year every US government worker that uses a computer has to take the same short course in IT security. One specific fact that is placed in front of every one of them is that on a government computer, there is no such thing as privacy or confidentiality. If there was, do you think that Hillary Clinton would have been in front of Congress along with her subpoenaed emails? Do you think the IRS director would have been in front of Congress or the EPA director about private email accounts and emails that they sent? If NOAA doesn’t end up in front of Congress with the required emails, it would require shielding from higher ups, and that would be the White House and the Department of Justice running as blockers.

    HOWEVER, they will stonewall it as long as possible not because they have legal grounds, but to keep the shit from hitting the fan before the Party in Paris. After that, they will comply because jail cells aren’t where high level government employees look forward to spending their time in, and flat standing on confidentiality will end up with them looking out through the barred windows at the world outside, and probably will cause them to forfeit any government pension that they may have earned as well.

    90

  • #
    handjive

    Here is a little “caught out” @Un-Skeptical Science … The internet never forgets …
    . . .
    Skeptic. Contrarian. Realist. What is the difference @Un-Skeptical Science?

    > The ‘infamous’ SS Escalator Graph @thinkprogress, 2013.

    >> The same SS Escalator Graph @SS, 2015.

    See that? Suddenly the word “skeptic” disappears and the word “contrarian” appears!

    But, then shouldn’t “skeptic” suddenly be on the “realist” side of the graph?

    Is this what passes as 97% climate science?
    . . .
    Footnote:

    Ten Distinguished Scientists and Scholars 
Named Fellows of Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
    (John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky are two)

    Jonova has posted on this:

    Associated Press dumps “denier” and “skeptic”. (The namecalling made them look stupid). We’re keeping “skeptic”!

    61

    • #

      Handjive, it would be interesting to know if they have retrospectively bothered to change past posts. If they stop using “skeptic” it will affect their search ranking. Who googles for “Climate contrarian”?

      53

      • #
        AndyG55

        “if they have retrospectively bothered to change past posts”

        They have often done it in the past, why should they stop now. ;-)

        41

  • #
    AndyG55

    According to Putin.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/30/russian-president-climate-change-is-fr**d/

    And a picture from dstealy.

    http://americandigest.org/sidelines/adefenseministers.jpg

    [Andy, Sorry this got stuck in moderation. It was one of the words in the URL. This is perfectly OK when it's an opinion directly attributed to a source and not possible to mistake as the opinion of joannenova.com.au, in this case Vladimir Putin. I took the liberty of an edit that only slightly changes your intended meaning. I think everyone will get the intent.] AZ

    93

  • #
    pattoh

    “Take your pills and don’t ask questions. Drink the sweet wine of entertainment we have given you. Don’t think for yourself: just believe. The truth will no longer be published unless we allow it to be.”

    ( lifted without apology but thanks from ZH )

    100

  • #
    Ross

    O/T but it looks like Mr Putin will be going to Paris to rub Obama’s nose in it again ( after doing it with the Syrian issue)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/30/russian-president-climate-change-is-fraud/

    With the Chinese playing games , India effectively saying “we’re going to do what is best for India” and now Putin saying it is [snip] then Paris is going to be a real bun fight.

    [That word I can't allow but the reference to Putin is OK.] AZ

    110

    • #
      AndyG55

      chuckle..

      We both got stuck in mod, Ross.. its that bad “F” word that is so, so applicable that is the problem.

      71

      • #
        Yonniestone

        At least my “F” word was the real deal, maybe the use of “Drokk” wouldn’t be so Dreddful…. :)

        50

  • #
    Anton

    I’m not sure that emails should be released. Scientists choose what to make public and that should be the published paper containing the results and everything needed to verify it – computer code, raw data etc. Beyond that they are as entitled to privacy as anybody else, even if the government pays their salaries. Demanding emails is just a fishing trip for those who don’t want to do the hard work of seeing if the paper can be reproduced from the code and the data. It is not unreasonable to ask skeptics of any published paper to do that hard work rather than demand emails that might contain individuals’ personal views on colleagues, religions, politics etc. Subpoena the code and data and leave it at that. I speak as a CAGW skeptic.

    913

    • #
      Manfred

      “Demanding emails is just a fishing trip…” (Anton #20)

      Highly unlikely. More likely, a dull walk down boring street, or at least it should be. Sadly though, as history has proved, emails around climate ‘science’ have been riveting and informative.

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005.

      “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009.

      “Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

      I cannot imagine NOT being AWARE of the role of my institutional academic email and of always KNOWING it is not mine per se, but merely provided for my professional convenience. I refrain, as I am certain the vast majority do, from writing comments regarding my “personal views on colleagues, religions, politics etc.,” which simply have no place in such a medium. Given the nature of the research and its potential to influence policy at present, and given the role of these people as public servants, their institutional emails, minutes and agendas of meetings are all subject to and a matter of public record.

      151

      • #
        Anton

        Political correctness has got so bad since I quit the university system that people self-censor nowadays? Glad I’m out! Nothing causes me to change my opinion – demand ALL stuff necessary to reconstitute published papers but NOTHING else. Otherwise it is like releasing data about who goes to the toilet when during office hours. Do you think we have a right to know that of government employees? If not, why is it different?

        511

        • #
          Manfred

          Do you think we have a right to know that of government employees?

          Try asking Hilary Clinton Anton.

          …that people self-censor nowadays

          Not really. I just think they’re aware of the boundaries between work and play – or they should be. Given the e-record is in essence permanent and enduring, it pays to be thoughtful and relevant to context.

          As I have shown (21.1), climate ‘science’ already has a well established reputation for a revealing e-trail. Based on that precedent alone, if I had a cortical reader, I’d insist on seeing their thoughts as well, at least while they were on the public dime!

          50

    • #

      Anton says: ” It is not unreasonable to ask skeptics of any published paper to do that hard work”

      Oh yes it is. If skeptics had equal funding I might agree with you. But if believers are being paid to do biased work, and that is most efficiently and easily demonstrated with their emails then set that correspondence free.

      If they are doing honest good work, they have nothing to worry about.

      If they take taxpayer funds the price is that their working must be available to all taxpayers. If believers are using funds to create highly complicated flawed and tricky analysis it will take months of work to show that. The antidote is to flush out those emails, or to flush out that funding.

      162

      • #
        Anton

        I’m sorry but I think that on this occasion privacy is the higher good. Who has not ever used their work email to romance their girlfriend, decide what film to watch when, bitched about colleagues, criticised daft politicians etc? Those things are reasonable and should remain private, even for people employed on government money. They are human too!

        15

        • #

          And in the ClimateGate emails skeptics went out of their way to not publish any private emails.

          This congressional request is not for private emails, even the ones done on government computers, government time and send with a government email. The request was for correspondance related to the Karl et al paper.

          50

        • #
          Glenn999

          Most folks use a personal email addy for their romancing and such.

          Work emails are for “work”

          and if someone wants to see the work emails, it should be okay.

          30

    • #
      John Robertson

      Those emails are sent on the govt server, on govt time assumably on the governments business.
      These bureaucrats know the rules, neither career troughers would not accept such pathetic excuses from the minions they supervise.
      You want privacy, do not take the governments dollar.
      Amazes me how many government employees are ignorant of their oath sworn responsibilities.
      Ever more astonishing is the number of people who believe they are above the law.

      80

    • #
      Don

      But nobody has an expectation of privacy, when using the resources of their employer. Thus, all the emails and notebooks and napkin sketches and even their work-related thoughts are the property of the employer. In this case, the employer is me, the taxpayer.

      30

    • #
      CameronH

      The emails sent by employees using the organisations email system belong to the organisation and not the individual. In this case where the organisation in the public service, which is effectively owned by the government and, therefore,the citizens, then it is right and proper that the elected representatives of the people should be provided with these emails as requested.

      50

  • #
  • #
    Robert O

    Wasn’t science about objectivity and being open so that one’s results could be verified by others? If results can’t be verified then there is a fundamental flaw with a hypothesis isn’t there?

    90

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Fraud is always confidential !

    100

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    BS is always confidential !

    90

  • #
    TdeF

    Could you imagine the same situation with the BOM? The government stepped in to stop the investigation. We cannot have people questioning the honesty of public servants. Or invading their privacy to do their jobs without any oversight? I mean, where would it end? In parliament?

    At least in the US people can see Hilary Clinton’s emails from the personal server kept in her garage? as Secretary of State, but not the ones gone missing. Or Nixon’s missing 18 1/2 minutes of tape. The very idea that government scientists are protected by privacy issues in the performance of their jobs is ridiculous. A few fiddled temperatures are hardly a matter of National Security. What harm could those do? Or are public servant scientists playing politics on wages to do science?

    101

  • #
    AndyG55

    KK wanted an expansion of my adaptation of Jo and David’s cartoon

    So here it is… http://s19.postimg.org/w1kiwqm9f/Energy_to_space.jpg

    Is that what you wanted, KK ?

    51

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Beuuudiful!!!

      Next step, but not for you or me, is to work out the numbers.

      Not so easy, maybe even impossible if the aim is to extract the Temp variation due to Human Origin CO2 only!!!!!!!!!!

      :)

      50

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Jo you are too kind.
    The paper that tried to “remove” the Pause? No, that is understating the case.
    His paper was hailed the Pause Buster. It wasn’t being delicately removed it was being busted! They tried to put the Pause on pause.

    Now that congresscritters are trying to unpause the pausing of the Pause, Karl and Co may need a Pause Buster Buster Buster :) (language warning).

    101

  • #
    Bill Reniert

    The lies from NOAA were released in a paper this spring. Yes both satellite and bouy data were massaged. See the pause vanish? However the un massaged UK data show the entire pause. For now.

    71

  • #

    Re that “long-standing practice in the scientific community” – they must have a new definition of science.

    The only people who want to “protect confidentiality” are those who have something to hide.

    101

  • #
    Amber

    Politicians , green lobby activists , and global warming conmen like to say scientists (who ever they are )tell us that the earth has a fever and we better
    spend $$Billions now to adjust the thermostat OR ELSE …they will keep sitting their with their beaks open for cash .

    But when those oh so reputable scientists won’t show their work me thinks it’s proof of a con .What do they have to hide ? Maybe it is just fear of government grant money being turned off.

    They can’t even explain natural variability which dwarfs the trace amount and influence of CO2 from humans
    and their models have been proven to grossly overstate any warming .

    Separate note ..isn’t China just being silly building those man made islands in the South China Sea just to have them sink under those scary rising seas .
    Or… could it be global warming is just a convenient diversion tactic as they clean out the wests manufacturing and hugely expand their military . Even better if
    the dummies in the west help pay for it . Now that is an inconvenient truth .

    91

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Some Richard Feynman quotes that NOAA would be wise to heed. [ Quote source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_p_feynman_5.html ]

    “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled”.

    “The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another”. [Emphasis mine]

    “I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions. This attitude of mind – this attitude of uncertainty – is vital to the scientist, and it is this attitude of mind which the student must first acquire”.

    “In constructing a new theory, we shall be careful to insist that they should be precise theories, giving a description from which definite conclusions can be drawn. We do not want to proceed in a fashion that would allow us to change the details of the theory at every place that we find it in conflict with experiment or with our initial postulates”.

    80

  • #
    Reed Coray

    FWIW. I just sent the following message to the US Congress Committee On Science, Space and Technology, chaired by Lamar Smith, Republican Texas–URL:

    https://science.house.gov/htbin/formproc/email.txt%26display%3D/contact/email-us/email-sent%26nobase%26fpGetVer%3D2

    I’m tired of the Obama administration’s thumbing its nose at the public. Don’t let NOAA get away with only partial compliance of your subpoena regarding NOAA’s official paper on the “Pause in global warming”! And don’t believe NOAA’s BS proclamation: “the long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.” As Richard Feynman said: “The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another”.

    121

  • #
    Amber

    So the unmassaged UK data shows a pause and the massaged USA ,NOAA , data somehow lost the pause. That apparent lost pause
    is now a USA state scientific secret . When scientists don’t agree and don’t show their work how can the science be settled ?

    The settlement is in fact, it’s not settled, and unless you are a moron you would have figured that out with a tiny bit of reading and if you passed grade 5 science .
    Did Al Gore pass grade 5 science or was he too busy picking tobacco ?

    111

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    I would hate that people are saying they cannot read and understand a scientific study – why on earth are “internal communications” required?

    I think the US House Science Committee are just engaging in some good ol’ harassment and a fishing expedition.

    “Kill the messenger”, as is said.

    07

    • #
      AndyG55

      You really are worried about what will come out in those emails, aren’t you Harry.

      I wonder how much evidence of FR**D and COLLUSION there will be. ;-)

      33

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        “You really are worried about what will come out in those emails, aren’t you Harry.”

        No more worried of that outcome as of you saying something meaningful and intelligent that adds to the discussion.

        22

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor Harry, we can all be TOTALLY CERTAIN that you will NEVER, EVER say something meaningful and intelligent that adds to the discussion.

          You never have and you never will.

          And seriously, what sort of very sick, lonely, fetid, mentality trolls places where he knows he is considered to be nothing more than a mindless slug.

          You need psychiatric help.

          23

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            AndyG55.

            Ha ha you are quite the character, are you not? I would hate to be you. I feel sorry for people who are determined to make fools of themselves in public.

            One day I hope you actually respond intelligently to one of my comments, instead of just trying to insult me. Perhaps you cannot?

            12

            • #
              AndyG55

              “I feel sorry for people who are determined to make fools of themselves in public.”

              Look in the mirror, boyo…. there you will be with the clown hat on.

              Ask yourself why you are here..

              It is for zero purpose expect to spread your pestilence..

              and everybody knows that.

              I will respond intelligently if you even post an intelligent comment.

              And we all know that will never happen.

              23

  • #

    [...] Secret science? What’s NOAA hiding? It used to be that scientists were supposed to publish their methods, discuss their reasoning, and point out the weaknesses of their work. Now, it’s confidential. [...]

    10

  • #
    Andrew Richards

    Climate cronies and [snip] who have conspired to fleece the tax-paying public of hundreds of billions of dollars. The US anti-conspiracy laws were intended to punish and prevent this kind of criminality. Of course, the reason the laws have not been applied is because the criminals involved are apparently above the law. Governments and their co-conspirators – scientific bureaucrats – are the criminals. Will the laws of the land be adhered to by these [snip], liars and thieves?

    22

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    Secret science, secret data.

    Why does Fort Denison’s (Sydney Harbour’s) noaa tidal record chart terminate at 2011?

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=680-140

    And how many others that show no change to the rate of rise also are ceasing to get published? They must be published somewhere.

    I note that scheduled maintenance of noaa’s tides and currents website will take place next Thursday. Wish I had the time to check the before and after.

    21

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      In a recent post somebody mentioned figures of 8 to 10 billion tons (tonnes?)of mass accumulation per year at the South Pole, Antarctica.

      This is a yearly rate of change of sea level of 0.07 mm per year roughly.

      Over 10 years it only amounts to 0.7 mm and over 100 years to 7 mm, not much in the scheme of things but it means that the seas are

      not rising by this amount and in light of the recent cold weather in the northern hemisphere over recent times there may be more ice

      accumulating than just the South Pole.

      11

      • #
        AndyG55

        Greenland appears to be piling on the mass this year.

        http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-04-03-31-34.png

        Not surprising really, now the AMO is dropping.

        Going to be funny watching the AGW troglodytes over the next few years as Arctic sea ice levels continue to increase. :-)

        And when this current El Nino (which has yet to cause any major peak in the atmospheric data) has done its dash, will be even funnier watching them as RSS and UAH temperatures start to fall.

        (GISS/NOAA temperatures will of course keep climbing, even if the whole planet is frozen solid, because that what GISS does.)

        21

  • #
    Alexander

    If you want to see some world-class whining, sniveling, and victim-wallowing about the NOAA situation, check out:

    http://robertscribbler.com/2015/11/04/elephant-tears-over-lost-climate-cherries-house-republicans-most-recent-witch-hunt-targets-noaa/

    Especially if you like the dry heaves and existential nausea that this kind of manipulation gives you. Invective, reflexive dogma, and pseudo-science runneth over; the only thing missing here from the new “standard narrative” is an explicit call to put the corrupt and evil deniers in jail for subverting motherhood and apple pie.

    20