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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Was the update in surface temp data that significant to draw the attention of climate skeptics?
Fishing expedition then. We don't know what we're looking for but we'll know it when we see it.
Don't act like these e-mails won't or can't contain useful or incriminating evidence to support the accusation.
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.
Satellite data, on the other hand, is highly calibrated and provides complete global coverage.
False.
Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades.
What "monthly projections?"
Yet NOAA refuses to incorporate satellite data into its monthly projections that are released to the public. Why?
Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: eisegesis
Suspecting climate change conspiracy, Judicial Watch sues NOAA for scientists’ e-mails
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.
On the contrary, preparing for a changing climate is the only responsible course of action. Equally important is reducing our influence on that change.
This is why many of us are very uncomfortable with this sort of irresponsible rhetoric.
Perhaps if you read the text you would understand the context. I do not find the concept specious.
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.
Cool, you and Dick Cheney. War is the only answer. I disagree.
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.