Lamar Smith, Climate Scientist Witch Hunter

The Guardian recently did a good piece on Lamar Smith, a Congressman from Texas who apparently has a vendetta against climate scientists and NOAA. This his maddness in my opinion because he is chair of the science committee and is letting his cognitive bias(and perhaps his Texas oil buddies) influence his judgement and denounce NOAA's climate report and the IPCC's report even though he admitted he never actually read the IPCC report.

Lamar Smith, Climate Scientist Witch Hunter

Apparently eager to ride the coattails of Vin Diesel’s new movie, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) seems intent on taking up the mantle of Witch Hunter by harassing the scientists at NOAA. These scientistspublished a study that joined a growing body of research debunking the supposed “pause” in warming, a trope regularly trotted out by deniers looking to argue against climate action.

In his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith has demanded a number of documents from NOAA and threatened them with prosecution if they don’t comply. He’s asking for the data and methods related to the study itself, which doesn’t sound too unreasonable at first. But when you learn that this information is already public, it seems odd that he would want to waste his and the scientists’ time demanding information that anyone with an internet connection can freely access.

I am shocked and astounded that not only we have someone like this in congress, he has been given the chair for the science, space, and technology committee. No wonder why the US keeps falling behind the rest of the developed world in science and technology.

a reply to: jrod

Still a number of respected people that question the 'Climate' issue. I still am trying to learn about the alarm versus normal historical fluctuations in our planet's climate.......many are, see here mate. Maybe we are just in a normal cycle? I am not sure but the opinion either way is not unanimous for sure.

Climate Debate Runs Deep in Governments and Elite Universities

.....and if that link doesn't work well......another here>>>>Climate Change or Just Plain Old Politics?

a reply to: jrod

Speaking of what is available in the public record .

Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public. - See more at: notrickszone.com...

notrickszone.com... Seems that there is a issue with the data and there may have been some fudging going on ....if true then yea bring the documents and your but and respond to why it is so or is not so ..

Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

- See more at: notrickszone.com...

a reply to: Area56
You posted an opinion piece by Richard Lindzen. Someone who most actual scientists call a misinformer of climate science. Most educated people have accepted climate science, just as most have accepted evolution.

Just because a handful of colleges still entertain an evolution vs creationism debate, does not mean evolution is a disputed science.

It is also important to note tha Lindzen receives funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Sourcewatch: Richard Lindzen

Lindzen' anti-AGW myths explained

Why are you concerned if Lamar Smith gets NOAA to release their records? If it's all on the up and up then all you Climate Warmists will be entirely vindicated because their records will show the truthfulness of their claims.

What are you scared of? Seems to me it would be a good thing for NOAA to put all their cards on the table--for the good of humanity and all that.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
You have provided a claim that the 'data is rigged' but do actually offer any proof.

Anyone can setup a website that is based on their opinion and cognitive bias. That however does not give their opinion any merit.

To put it bluntly, notrickszone.com is putting out an opinion that some misinformed people may mistake for fact.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Area56
Most educated people have accepted climate science,

Sure, most educated people accept there is a science to study climate. That doesn't mean most educated people accept the man-made climate change fiasco being peddled incessantly despite flawed computer models, failed predictions, modified data, hidden data, and real-world observations.

a reply to: schuyler
NOAA's records are already public record which I stated in the OP.

They already have their cards on the table. How difficult is that to comprehend?

It does appear Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt and wishes to demonize climate science without actually taking the time to look at the information presented by NOAA and the IPCC.

This is what I call science denial.

a reply to: jrod

No wonder why the US keeps falling behind the rest of the developed world in science and technology.

So you make a thread and add your opinion but provide no data to back it up . The link to the notrickzone is talking about a study by a scientist who looked at the data and found some big issues with .

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Okay, let me try to explain the basics of AGW for you:

Since the industrial revolution we have been burning a lot of fossil fuels for energy which releases sequestered CO2 in the atmosphere. We have burned so much of the stuff that now we are observing a sharp increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. CO2 causes radiative forcing which essentially traps heat from the sun in our atmosphere. This is AGW theory in a nutshell.

Along with CO2 increase, we are also observing a temperature rise on our planet.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: schuyler
NOAA's records are already public record which I stated in the OP.

They already have their cards on the table. How difficult is that to comprehend?

It does appear Lamar Smith is on a witch hunt and wishes to demonize climate science without actually taking the time to look at the information presented by NOAA and the IPCC.

This is what I call science denial.

From NOAA Environmental Information

RAW

Imagery in the "Raw" format is in the raw data format received by the data provider. For GOES - Imager
data, this format is GOES VARiable (GVAR). The vast majority of users will not need GVAR data format.
Users of imagery should order image formats (mentioned above) and others interested in using the data
quantitatively should make use of the Area format options. The GVAR format is summarized in NOAA
Technical Report NESDIS 82.

At present, there are no known, publicly-available GVAR readers.

There are some folks who would like this sort of thing made public. The raw satellite data generally must be processed by some institute's decoder, so they must rely on the other filtered formats. Those who are suspicious would rather use this than the other formats (see stenography) to verify the claims. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to reproduce the results based on the same data.

-FBB

a reply to: the2ofusr1

This thread is about Congressman's Lamar Smith witch hunt and apparent denial of science. I can't make this BS up.

More of Lamar Smith's questionable politics:

www.expressnews.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.csmonitor.com...
www.latimes.com...

a reply to: jrod

Nice hit-piece...

Are you aware your precious US Government scientists have factored ZERO Geo-Engineering impacts into their precious studies...despite it being done by precious US Government for 60 years on US territory.

The owner of ATS has made an OP that Geo-Engineering is fact...

a reply to: jrod

Actually mate, I have no issue with science in its effort to try and explain things. But, science has changed its opinions on many issues. Remember Galileo ? , They stuck him in a tower to shut him up.

It seems often times in today's world if you dare question the scientific world, even if you are a scientist, they just want to discredit you because they are 'right' and everyone who questions things are wrong or ignorant.

Fact is, from a planetary scientific standpoint, we have been keeping climate records for less than 100 years.....hardly a sampling for a planet that is 4.6 billion years old. We still have a lot to learn. But, I am all in favor of protecting this planet.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: the2ofusr1

This thread is about Congressman's Lamar Smith witch hunt and apparent denial of science. I can't make this BS up.

More of Lamar Smith's questionable politics:

www.expressnews.com...

No offence, but the journalists showing pictures of drought and citing cranks/politicians claiming extreme weather is scientifically proven to be a result of current climate change has little basis in reality.

Listen to an actual climate scientist who served at NASA and NOAA, Judith Curry.

Curry is a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[6] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[6][7] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.

. . .

The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution.

You link to a story that requires a subscription, so as far as I can explore it it does not even link to the National Climate Assessment report or even cite where in the report this claim is made. So as far as any science is concerned the article is baseless.

-FBB

a reply to: jrod

Well if he is " Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology" and would like to have a look into the science from the climate people he should be the go to guy . If you are saying he is looking or wants to ask some questions then that doesn't sound like a witch hunt but him doing his job . The refusal to not show the documents only is a problem for those refusing to do so . WHY would they refuse to ???? That only raises questions .And what he might be asking for is not public other then through FOIA or through investigation by him and the law ....

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: the2ofusr1
You have provided a claim that the 'data is rigged' but do actually offer any proof.

I don't know that ALL the data is rigged, but there's plenty of proof that SOME of it is. The Climategate emails proved that well enough. Remember "Hide the decline"? This is not made up. They did it. Why? Because they had some clearly erroneous data they would have to explain if it continued to hang out like a sore thumb. And at first glance this data looks to corroborate the issue well enough. Here's what happened:

These guys used a multi-variate graph to illustrate warming. They used several different methods, including very accurate modern thermometers to show the warming trend. Only one measurement showed temperatures declining. No big deal, right? But instead of letting it ride the graph showed this one line of the multi-line graph entering into a temporary decline shown by ALL the data, but it disappeared when this glitch showed the temperatures warming. You'd expect this kind of behavior in a graph of this sort. Temperatures don't go straight up or down. They zig and zag a bit.

The problem was that the data that continued to decline was tree ring data. It was obviously wrong because those very accurate thermometers proved it, but they hid it because they also used tree ring data to "prove" what the temperature was long ago. Because they did not have those very accurate thermometers 20,000 years ago they used the tree ring data as a "proxy" to show what the temperature was long ago.

The issue, of course, is if the tree ring data is so obviously wrong today showing contemporary data, how can you use it for past data? It nullifies their overall conclusions.

So the question is, if you are so damn sure about your conclusions about global warming, why do you have to cook the books and present false data?



And here's another look at "warming" that did not really happen:



There are tons of examples like this that warming alarmists refuse to deal with. And here's what happens when you take a bit broader perspective:



Anybody ready for a new ice age?

a reply to: jrod

Is it possible that Lamar Smith, from the chair for the science, space, and technology committee doesn't know how to use a computer?


If not he should have one his interns that does know how to use a computer print out the documents he is asking for.

a reply to: schuyler

The 'climategate' emails were nothing but hype an attempt at a manufactured crisis. It does not change the overwhelming consensus that AGW is real.

I am baffled that so manyvare still stuck on a non-issue. It is as if you think 'climate gate' has anything to the real and observable phenomenon known as AGW.

What do that hacked CRU 'climategate' emails tell us?

a reply to: schuyler
Awesome!

Catchy graphics from questionable sources!

Seriously though, you need cite sources when you post things like that, otherwise it just appears that you appealing to ignorance.