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.

 

Suspecting climate change conspiracy, Judicial Watch sues NOAA for scientists’ e-mails

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

According to a press release from the group, Judicial Watch submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on October 30 for many of the same records Rep. Smith is seeking. The group requested “all documents and records of communications between NOAA officials, employees, and contractors” relating to decisions about methods for building NOAA’s global surface temperature dataset. In addition, Judicial Watch included a request for communications about Rep. Smith’s subpoena.

Judicial Watch says it received no response from NOAA, so on December 2 they filed a lawsuit. On December 15, the press release says, “NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.” NOAA told a Washington Post reporter it could not comment on the FOIA request since there is now a lawsuit in process.

Source

This all started back in October when Texas Congressman Lamar Smith accused the NOAA of manipulating temperature data. Rep. Smith believes, as he has not found any evidence thus far, that obtaining these e-mails will prove the NOAA's involvement in manipulating surface temps. After Rep. Smith's initial request was fulfilled, a second request was made for more data. The NOAA failed to respond within the two week deadline and subpoenas were issued.


NOAA responded to Rep. Smith’s request by pointing him to the relevant data and methods, all of which had already been publicly available. But on September 10, Smith sent another letter. “After review, I have additional questions related to the datasets used to adjust historical temperature records, as well as NOAA’s practices surrounding its use of climate data,” he wrote. The available data wasn’t enough, and he requested various subsets of the data—buoy readings separated out, for example, with both the raw and corrected data provided.

This letter also asked for explanations of the differences between these datasets and “NOAA’s rationale for constructing the datasets as outlined in” the Science paper. The politician reiterated, more specifically, requests for “all documents and communications” relating to several topics. Somewhat ironically, Rep. Smith even invoked the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in one letter, describing the NOAA study as being “in direct disagreement” with it.

When NOAA did not respond before Rep. Smith’s two-week deadline, a September 25 letter threatened a subpoena. NOAA apparently provided the data Rep. Smith requested shortly after, but the organization refused to hand over internal communications. The threatened subpoena was sent on October 13.

The NOAA states, "drafts and deliberative discussions among scientists are confidential and that the publication of data and methods are sufficient." Rep. Smith doesn't seem to agree at this point and in my opinion, will lose all credibility if what he's expecting to find in these e-mails doesn't appear.Now, with the help of Judicial Watch, the pressure is mounting.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce

Rep. Smith's office issued this statement:


It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made. NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.

To be honest with you, I'm rooting for Judicial Watch. They seem to know who the "real" enemy is and have helped expose corruption in the past. They are relentless and won't stop until they get results.


Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

In late 2014, Judicial Watch litigation forced out documents withheld in response to another congressional subpoena – one issued in the Fast and Furious scandal. Thanks to the Judicial Watch lawsuit, Congress finally obtained the information it had sought for years on Obama’s gun-running scandal.

A statement from Judicial Watch:


“We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration. The Obama administration seems to care not one whit for a congressional subpoena but knows from prior experience that a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit cannot be ignored,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”

Are these the delusions of an avid climate skeptic or could there be truth to his claim? Numbers have been know to change and not everyone is watching. Thankfully, even if this does turn out to be nothing, I'm happy knowing there are people keeping an eye on how the information is being gathered and presented. I can accept the science, just not those benefiting from it. Let me know what you think. I'll be watching this one closely.


edit on 26-12-2015 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis




Are these the delusions of an avid climate skeptic or could there be truth to his claim.

They are the claims of someone who is ignorant of data gathering and analytical systems. Willfully ignorant or otherwise. Information on all of the data gathering and analysis is readily available.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Kudos to JW.
Whats wrong with getting ALL the evidence, instead of just SOME of the evidence?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: eisegesis




Are these the delusions of an avid climate skeptic or could there be truth to his claim.

They are the claims of someone who is ignorant of data gathering and analytical systems. Willfully ignorant or otherwise. Information on all of the data gathering and analysis is readily available.

Except for the e-mails that Rep. Smith and Judicial Watch are rabidly going after.

They are either at a loss and reaching for any last ray of hope to prove the misrepresentation of data or there really is enough cause for alarm. Was the update in surface temp data that significant to draw the attention of climate skeptics?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Which emails, exactly? The ones that say "Yeah man, all the evidence says the world is getting colder. We have to do something about it?" That's probably like asking for the emails between the President and Zorg from Andromeda.



Was the update in surface temp data that significant to draw the attention of climate skeptics?

You mean for the US in 1998 and 1934? The 1934 temperature was lifted by 0.1º to put it in first place. Globally, it was far down the list.

Both those years have been beaten in the past decade. No, not really significant. But then climate skeptics aren't picky, just desperate.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis
Irrespective of the email content isn't there any alarm bells ringing here? Or is the "the US is the only place on the planet" mentality blinding you to the bleedin obvious. If there really was data manipulation taking place then there would have to be a worldwide conspiracy and cooperation between tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of organisations around the world. Such a conspiracy has to be phenomenally well organised every single conspirator fully committed to hiding the truth.

Nothing is that well organised and worldwide.....come on please.......



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

sooo.....

what do they have to hide?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
NVM...


edit on 26-12-2015 by eisegesis because: rethinking



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Don't act like these e-mails won't or can't contain useful or incriminating evidence to support the accusation.
Fishing expedition then. We don't know what we're looking for but we'll know it when we see it.



Satellite data, on the other hand, is highly calibrated and provides complete global coverage.
Not exactly complete coverage, data from the high Arctic and Antarctic is not available. But that word "calibrated" is an interesting choice. See, to derive temperature data from satellite data requires quite a bit of data processing. It's not as if they lower thermometers from the satellite. A lot of adjustments and calculations come into play. Exactly the sort of thing that warming deniers complain about. Odd that when they (erroneously) think it supports their position (satellite data shows no warming) they accept it.



Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades.
False.



Yet NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?
What "monthly projections?"

The author demonstrates quite a bit of ignorance. Including the claim that satellite data "clearly" shows no change in temperature for the past 20 years.




Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

An electrical engineer? Why? But the OP seems to be more about denying that temperatures are rising than about what's causing it.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Damn, you responded before I could perform damage control.


I agree, what I initially put forth was false.

Here's what the fuss is all about.


Updated NOAA temperature record shows little global warming slowdown


For a long time, the standard method was to pull up a bucket of water and drop a thermometer in it. But over time—and especially around World War II—this was increasingly abandoned for measurements made of water in the engine room intake pipe. Intake pipes give you a slightly warmer temperature than the buckets, and so a correction has to be applied to make the two comparable.

Scientists hadn’t used those corrections for data after World War II, but recent research discovered that the bucket method didn’t completely go away. As a result, the sea surface temperature database now includes a correction to deal with this up to the present day. This makes a non-trivial difference.

The researchers also developed an improved correction for systematic differences between buoy measurements and ship measurements by examining measurements made by ships while they were near buoys. The buoy measurements averaged 0.12 degrees Celsius cooler, necessitating an adjustment, but the measurements are also higher quality and come with a smaller margin of error.

Incorporating these changes results in small shifts in the global average surface temperature estimates. Some years moved upward a bit; some years moved downward. The change over the entire record, which extends back to 1880, is miniscule. But over short time periods, this wiggling can alter trends a bit.

Pretty interesting. Not particularly alarming either. What I think is getting everybody upset is the way the data is being presented.


The NOAA likes to push the idea that we are in a warming trend and while true, doesn't always justify that we are in any immediate jeopardy.


edit on 26-12-2015 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Global climate change as a result of man made carbon emissions is settled science. This will go nowhere because the elites in charge have already weighed in on this topic. Challenges such as this are a waste of time and resources.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis



The NOAA likes to push the idea that we are in a warming trend and while true, doesn't always justify that we are in any immediate jeopardy.

Few (if any) say we are in immediate jeopardy. Though the effects of warming are beginning to be felt.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: eisegesis



The NOAA likes to push the idea that we are in a warming trend and while true, doesn't always justify that we are in any immediate jeopardy.

Few (if any) say we are in immediate jeopardy. Though the effects of warming are beginning to be felt.


"climate change is an immediate threat to our national security"

-Barach Obama

'Immediate Threat’ Calls for Action

This is why many of us are very uncomfortable with this sort of irresponsible rhetoric.
edit on 26-12-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
Suspecting climate change conspiracy, Judicial Watch sues NOAA for scientists’ e-mails

All this because another idiot 'flat earther' has the power (Texas politician's IQ seem inversely proportional to the size of their state!) to jam up the works, a bit (his religious right, no doubt) while sane people attempt to fix what fools like that broke!



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
In the context of that speech to the Coast Guard graduates, yes, he is correct. The threat of warming requires immediate action. Both in preparing for its impacts and, hopefully, in mitigating the rate and scope of change. He, like I did pointed out that effects are now being seen. He also made the point that the longer we wait, the more severe will be the impacts.

Some warming is now inevitable. But there comes a point when the worst effects will be irreversible. And time is running out. And we all know what needs to happen. It’s no secret. The world has to finally start reducing its carbon emissions -- now. And that's why I’ve committed the United States to leading the world on this challenge.

www.whitehouse.gov...



This is why many of us are very uncomfortable with this sort of irresponsible rhetoric.
On the contrary, preparing for a changing climate is the only responsible course of action. Equally important is reducing our influence on that change.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just addressing your comment about the limited quantity of alarmists (and their influence).

I think we can agree that saying that AGW is the greatest threat to our national security is specious given the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Since the US is not the primary polluter in the world, it immediately calls into my mind the possibility of pollution wars with China and India, the only possible way to address the military threat of climate change.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



I think we can agree that saying that AGW is the greatest threat to our national security is specious given the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Perhaps if you read the text you would understand the context. I do not find the concept specious.



Since the US is not the primary polluter in the world, it immediately calls into my mind the possibility of pollution wars with China and India, the only possible way to address the military threat of climate change.
Cool, you and Dick Cheney. War is the only answer. I disagree.

But even if nothing is done about carbon emissions, do you think preparing for climate change is pointless?





edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What do you think national security is?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
Tell you what. Read the text before asking questions about it.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You know enough about me to know that I am anti-totalitarian and this avenue points directly toward it.

I do read JW.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join