The disagreement on climate change, natch global warming, is not over it happening, but causation. Warmists maintain that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, especially from fossil fuels, and they believe in this so much that they will take fossil fueled vehicles to protests and climate change conferences. Skeptics believe that it is mostly/solely caused by natural processes, but do understand that a slight part is caused by mankind. Things like agriculture and landfills (mostly methane), a tiny tiny bit from CO2, the Urban Heat Island effect and land use, oh, and we cannot forget about the constant adjustment to the temperature records
Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists
The head of a congressional committee on science has issued subpoenas to the Obama administration over a recent scientific study refuting claims that global warming had “paused†or slowed over the last decade.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a prominent congressional skeptic on climate change, issued the subpoenas two weeks ago demanding e-mails and records from U.S. scientists who participated in the study, which undercut a popular argument used by critics who reject the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind the planet’s recent warming.
Smith’s document request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ordered the agency to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees†involved in the study, according to a letter Friday by the House committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.). Johnson accused Smith of “furthering a fishing expedition†by looking for ways to discredit NOAA’s study, which was published in June in the peer-reviewed journal Science.
Of course, this has made Warmist Democrats upset, which brings up the question “what do they have to hide?” Why would they want to keep this information secret?
Smith, responding to Johnson’s letter, said the subpoena was not “harassment†but “appropriate constitutional oversight.â€
“This scandal-ridden administration’s lack of openness is the real problem,†Smith said in a statement released by his office. “Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made.â€
The Cult of Climastrology doesn’t want their methods, data, or decisions understood, because that would expose their shoddy anti-science methods. What other science would adjust the quality data to a guess instead of adjusting the guess to the high quality data? This is referring to the NOAA study cited in the article, which has numerous problems.
In regards to the NOAA study, this is offered in closing by the Washington Post
“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113°C [per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C [per decade]),†they continued.
First off, half the period of 1950-1999 was a period of cooling/pause, which led to the many wondering if a new ice age was coming. Second, just barely over one-tenth of a degree C per decade is minuscule, and certainly within the boundary of natural causation, as happened during previous Holocene warm periods. Third, if we are to take the study at face value, this would destroy the apocalyptic prognostication from the Cult of Climastrology about a 2C rise by the end of the 21st Century.
Again, if everything is on the up and up, NOAA and the scientists involved should have no problem giving Congress their records and such, right? And, warming doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. It just proves warming. Unless that warming is manufactured in the records.
That’s just the latest “moderate Denier” story. Just a few years ago Deniers Denied that warming was occurring. Many still do, claiming that warming stopped in 1998. The Denier Minister of Propaganda, weatherman Anthony Watts, famously tried to blame all warming on thermometer placement.
Anyway, this is just more of the far-right’s war on scientists. The Bush administration politicized science by adjusting and suppressing scientific reports. By all means, Rep Smith, gather the raw data, get it into the hands of Denier pseudoscientists and let them work their magic. Bring the Denier pseudoscientists to testify, ignoring the real scientists. Another right wing show trial.
Benghazi!!
Right, because the Congress is best suited to reaching scientific conclusions.
The vote on gravity was close, but the weight of the majority won out.
Instead, we should listen to obama, Kerry, UN bigwigs, and people with a vested interest in keeping the gravy train running, right?
It’s almost like you’re afraid as to what an investigation might expose.
Teach I am unsure of why you think Obama would in some way benefit from people acknowledging AGW. As has been proved by our last 2 POYUS they can make as much money as they want regardless of their political leanings.
Teach why do YOU believe the temps have been going up? In the past scientists have always been able to offer an explanation such as orbital shifts, volcanic activity etc. Since the total solar irradiance has been flat or slightly down since 1960 why has the temp gone up ? You have posted that the sun is THE great driver of temps but we are in a soalr cooling phase right now but temps are going UP ! https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
One would think Schmidt, Trenberth, Mann, and the rest of the hockey team would be chomping at the bit to testify before the committee since the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence proves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
What would they be afraid of?
It’s not the climate scientists who are reluctant, they have to be invited by Rep Smith. The Republicans haven’t been very effective at smearing their targets in person. Just ask Rep Trey “Flop Sweat” Gowdy.
When it comes to global warming they prefer to bring in “friendly” skeptics to tell them what they want to hear. Does anyone really think that Mr. Smith is trying to understand the technical details of global warming?
One would think that with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence they would volunteer to testify to settle the debate once and for all.
What would they have to fear if they have the truth on their side?
As I saw elsewhere today-“If the science is settled, can we cut off the funding?”
I wasn’t aware one could just drop in and lecture a House committee.
If Mr. Smith wants to hear from Dr. Mann, I’m sure it can be arranged.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has refused to comply with lawmakers’ attempt to subpoena internal communications related to a recent climate-change study by its scientists.
Wonder what they’re hiding?
They’re not hiding all the raw data and methods, having already supplied that. Smith can hire Denier pseudoscientists to recalculate all the data and try to replicate the results. It seems like they are protecting their personal communications from a Denier witch-hunt.
We all know what Smith is looking for: a smoking gun email or taped telephone call where a scientist called a Denier a troglodyte.
What is Smith hiding? Will he release all his email and telephone communications?
Jeff,
So, where do we find the raw data? I have looked and my efforts have not been rewarded, so enlighten us. Or did you not get the memo 10 years ago about the “loss of data” when the email scandal broke? So, we are all waiting for the link, and not your usual opinion piece or fluffed up numbers.
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/
Zachriel,
You see, the problem with your age group is that you are limited in reading ability and don’t have any, any, critical analysis skills. I went to the site that you directed me and found data that had been altered and the usual set of grafts that are meaningless. As I have said with Jeff, get an education.
We won’t blame your age, but the raw data is available at Berkeley Earth.
Look here for the source data:
http://berkeleyearth.org/source-files/
You might also want to check the methods page. Traditional methods homogenized data by splicing apparent discontinuities. Berkeley Earth uses a new statistical method which maintains the individual records, but still finds the same trend as previous methods. See Rohde et al., Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013.
BEST gets most but not all of their data from the NCDC which is part of NOAA, the group which has tampered with their own historical data AND ignores the RSS and UAH satellite data.
No one ignores the RSS and UAH calculated “temperatures”. Since 1979 (when the satellite systems went “live”) every data set, RSS, UAH, BEST, NOAA, GisTemp, Hadcrut shows warming.
So the satellite estimate system, UAH, tracks closely with the thermometer based systems and RSS appears as an outlier. Why do the two satellite systems show such disparate results? Why do people such as Monckton now only believe the RSS results? Isn’t it obvious?
The satellites do not measure temperature (contrary to one Monckton lie) but calculate a “brightness temperature” after many, many manipulations and corrections. The satellite data is “adjusted” much more than the thermometer data.
Deniers deny. It’s what they do.
The satellite data is “adjusted†much more than the thermometer data.
Satellites cover the entire earth. Every square kilometer.
Land based thermometers cover a very small area. Some are hundreds of miles away from another site. Much of Siberia, Africa and large portions of South America don’t have a single land based thermometer.
The oceans have a couple of thousand buoys.
So which measurements of the entire world would a reasonable person consider the most accurate?
A system which guesses at measurements where no thermometers exist and then alters it’s existing historical data or one that has been consistent from the beginning?
Do you trust Roy Spencer’s/John Christy’s UAH satellite data? If not, why not?
That is incorrect. UAH has poor coverage of very high latitudes. Nor do satellites measure surface temperatures, but tropospheric radiation. Furthermore, they require a complex set of adjustments. Nonetheless, per RSS, “over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly,” and “Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.”
A thermometer only measures a single point in space, yet you will use a thermometer to decide whether to wear a jacket or not. In addition, scientists are interested in temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature, which renders your objection moot.
Independent statistical analysis of the raw data shows the same trend as traditional techniques.
Do you trust Roy Spencer’s/John Christy’s UAH satellite data? If not, why not?
No, I trust guys like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Thomas Karl, Thomas Peterson, and all the rest that have been caught altering historical data. If you have to change the data to fit your theory, then your theory is shit.
Are you stupid? Did Reagan invade Panama?