It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is NOAA About to Crack? ‘Pausebuster’ study under intense scrutiny.

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It looks like Lamar Smith has got his hands full this er, weather. Not only is he investigating scientist Jagadish Shukla, (the subject of a thread I started a month or so ago) and millions of public money, now he is in the throes of investigating the Tom Karl et al 2015 “Pausebuster” study.
Lamar is now saying that NOAA whistleblowers have come forward, with information which cast doubt on the scientific integrity of NOAA’s global temperature reconstructions.
There's more info at The Washington Post,
Smith has said that the whistleblowers’ allegations make it more crucial that he be provided with the scientists’ internal e-mails and communications. If NOAA does not produce the e-mails he is seeking by Friday, the chairman said, “I will be forced to consider use of compulsory process,” a threat to subpoena the commerce secretary herself.

Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.
“NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored,” he wrote.

www.washingtonpost.com... a-documents/

This stuff is getting heavy, and Lamar Smith seems determined to get to the truth of all this, while the idea now of whistleblowers at NOOA, or a committee they are involved with, or both, is pretty serious.





wattsupwiththat.com...




posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Wattsupwiththat.com receives funds from Exxon. Mr. Watts is in the business of casting doubt on climate science. Further investigation will show that the arguments made are not based on good science, instead appeal to ignorance and cognitive bias.

What evidence do you have that NASA, NOAA,and thousands of independent scientists around the world have AGW wrong, and shills like Mr. Watts got it right?


PS, all of NOAA's research is in the public domain so to claim there are NOAA whistleblowers is a bit of a stretch.
edit on 22-11-2015 by jrod because: ps



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I am curious to see what the Washington Post uncovers, they do have a long pedigree of serious investigative journalism.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Hopefulky what most of us already know, that is Lamar Smith(R Texas) is on a witch hunt because he knowd curbing CO2 emissions will hurt his oil buddies profits back in Texas. I see a desperate man grasping at straws in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

Don't you find it fishy that Exxon and a few oil companies out of Texas are essentially the only ones to question(or as some see it attempt to manipulate public perception) the valid science behind AGW and the role burning fossil fuels plays?

BP, Chevron, and many other big oil companies accept the science.


edit on 22-11-2015 by jrod because: rr



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
This perhaps?
notrickszone.com... bs
edit on 22-11-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

I wonder if Realclimate.org going dark is related to all of this ? Maybe they are trying to scrub the site .They should get ahold of Hillary if they are thinking of hiding stuff , she seems to have that one down pat .



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: smurfy

Wattsupwiththat.com receives funds from Exxon. Mr. Watts is in the business of casting doubt on climate science. Further investigation will show that the arguments made are not based on good science, instead appeal to ignorance and cognitive bias.

What evidence do you have that NASA, NOAA,and thousands of independent scientists around the world have AGW wrong, and shills like Mr. Watts got it right?


PS, all of NOAA's research is in the public domain so to claim there are NOAA whistleblowers is a bit of a stretch.


All the NOAA values that is in the public domain are doctored numbers. Thousands of scientists agree with the results off of these numbers, except the numbers are false that they are processing.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: smurfy



What evidence do you have that NASA, NOAA,and thousands of independent scientists around the world have AGW wrong, and shills like Mr. Watts got it right?


PS, all of NOAA's research is in the public domain so to claim there are NOAA whistleblowers is a bit of a stretch.


Mr Watt's is only the messenger here, in fact this is a guest post from a Mr Eric Worrall. As for the claim of whistleblowers, that's from Lamar Smith.
You need to hold on the "Thousands of scientists around the world" line too, when there is a need to know what's going on at NOAA first, and first off just how good the historical, and current methods of weather information were and are, (some weather stations, in fact quite a few are poorly sited or just plain wrongly sited) since all the modelling would surely need to have some real gathered information as a basis. More than that, I too am just a messenger.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?


Control.

Green is the new Red.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
This perhaps?
notrickszone.com... bs


That is so very current:
Aside from the detail in the model changes..or rather actual figures, this para is the same thing I was rattling on about, and not just me either, there are independent webs out there all detailing, and critical of the siting of these stations, with many not even to the standard defined by NOOA itself,

"Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo."

Thanks for that link.


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Two things are certain.

1. Global Warming is real. Take a look at the Menendahl Glacier today versus in 1967. The glacial retreat is amazing and it is indisputable.

2. Scientists have been caught red-handed fudging the numbers. "Hide the decline" is real. That's what they did. They hid tree ring cores which showed a reduction in temperature today. They hid it because they would have had to explain it. The reason is because they used tree ring cores to establish temperatures in the past and if they don't work now, there's no good reason to think they did then. The numbers they have used to establish global warming are on very shaky ground. And we know they have cheated. This is also indisputable.

3. They just found a tropical forest buried in the Arctic. This is indisputable. The Earth used to be warmer--a LOT warmer than it is today. That's when your typical bracken firm was 60 feet tall. CO2 is plant food. It makes plants grow. That is indisputable.

4. Al Gore got his graph wrong. He said an out flow of CO2 resulted in higher temperatures. That was when the granularity of his data led him to think that, trained climate scientist that he is. However, refined techniques show that he got it backwards. In truth warming temperatures created an outflow of CO2, perhaps out gassed by the oceans as they warmed up.

5. The hockey stick temperature graph is BS. The input of ANY "red noise" creates a hockey stick in the program they used. "Red noise" is like stock quotes, where the next number depends on the last. "White noise" is entirely random.

6. Temperature is rising compared to what? Compared to the "Little Ice Age" of the last 1700's it IS warming. That's when you could ice skate on a frozen River Thames. Compared to the Medieval Warming Period it isn't. That's when you could grow wine grapes in Scotland and raise cattle in "Green"land which used to be green before all the snow fell on it.

Bottom line is that the numbers have been intentionally fudged. If the globe is warming anyway, the question becomes, why did they feel it necessary to do this? Why couldn't they let the real numbers speak for themselves? Why did they "hide the decline"?

That they are forcing NOAA to come clean is a good thing. If you are so certain they are correct, then you have nothing to fear because all the internal emails and numbers will support what you believe. Rather than criticize it, let it happen so that you can be entirely vindicated and trumpet your success to the rest of us.

What are you sacred of?

Have you read the Climategate emails? If you have, why AREN'T you scared of what they have been doing?



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: smurfy

Wattsupwiththat.com receives funds from Exxon. Mr. Watts is in the business of casting doubt on climate science. Further investigation will show that the arguments made are not based on good science, instead appeal to ignorance and cognitive bias.

What evidence do you have that NASA, NOAA,and thousands of independent scientists around the world have AGW wrong, and shills like Mr. Watts got it right?


PS, all of NOAA's research is in the public domain so to claim there are NOAA whistleblowers is a bit of a stretch.


Well, why doesn't NOAA just submit the documents asked for in the subpoena?



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

The Washington Post is certainly not in bed with Exxon so, as I stated earlier, I am interested to see what they uncover.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Maybe because there are no documents to subpoena.

Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt and trying to manufacture a crisis. My best guess is he wants to subvert emission controls in the fossil fuel industry and is trying to create a diversion in hopess of getting the ignorant masses to protest NOAA and what the have to say about man's(specifically the fossil fuel industry) role in climate change.

I am deeply saddened by the replies in here. This is beyond ignorance, this is straight up stupidity being put in display here.

Hopefully some other posters who have a much better understanding of the actual climate science than I do will post on this thread and shed some light on the actual science and the political posturing that Lamar Smith is engaging in.


edit on 22-11-2015 by jrod because: add yt



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?


tell that to the native peoples of the equatorial island nations that have had to relocate, or are in the process of relocating, due to their island nations slowly being flooded



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
This perhaps?
notrickszone.com... bs


From your link:


The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.
- See more at: notrickszone.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   


The Earth used to be warmer--a LOT warmer than it is today


Yes, where the land masses were all clustered around the equator and there were no ice caps. You can't compare the world then to today unless you have no integrity whatsoever.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Hopefulky what most of us already know, that is Lamar Smith(R Texas) is on a witch hunt because he knowd curbing CO2 emissions will hurt his oil buddies profits back in Texas. I see a desperate man grasping at straws in an attempt to delay the inevitable.

Don't you find it fishy that Exxon and a few oil companies out of Texas are essentially the only ones to question(or as some see it attempt to manipulate public perception) the valid science behind AGW and the role burning fossil fuels plays?

BP, Chevron, and many other big oil companies accept the science.


True, big oil companies have an undue influence on the public in many areas. They also have a history of fighting regulations which would benefit the public, like reducing the lead content in gasoline which has been shown to have had a great correlation with reducing crime in the time since (counter to the claims it was planned parenthood).

However, whenever something is so politically charged as climate science has become there is really no reason that the raw data and modulation techniques of a publicly funded organization shouldn't be placed in the public domain.

Historically members within the scientific body have frequently made complaints against the scope of investigations mandated by the government bodies or the tribal nature of those within the movement. See Judith Curry (source).

-FBB



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
One thing I want to know, and you can go look this up, why are all the solutions to Global Warming the exact same as the solutions for Global Cooling as proposed in the late '70s?

If they truly believed that both were real, imminent threats, wouldn't the proposed solutions be somewhat different than massive carbon taxing schemes, destruction of the industrial bases of developed nations and massive redistribution of wealth under the auspices of the UN?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join