House Science Committee Climate Conspiracy Collides With Reality
Facts Contradict House Science Committee Majority’s Attack on NOAA’s Climate Scientists
“On Sunday, the British tabloid The Mail on Sunday, was forced to publish an “adverse adjudication” against it by the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO), the independent regulator of the British newspaper and magazine industry, regarding a climate change story it published on February 5, 2017, by controversial reporter David Rose. The article, with the original online headline: Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data, was largely based on an interview with Dr. John Bates, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist about his criticism of a NOAA climate study. In its published findings, the IPSO concluded that the article was both inaccurate and misleading. … Science Committee Republicans had seized on the misleading The Mail on Sunday article and published their own press release the same day the article appeared on February 5, 2017 with a headline that also twisted the comments by Dr. Bates, incorrectly asserting that Dr. Bates had said NOAA colleagues “manipulated climate records.””
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (Feb 2017)
“U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
The House ‘Science’ Committee released their ‘findings’ in Feb 2017 on a 2015 NOAA paper that temps are increasing at a faster rate: scientists ‘manipulated’ data to fit a ‘politically predetermined answer’.
A month earlier, Jan 2017, an independent Study Confirms ground breaking 2015 NOAA finding of faster global warming.
“Until the early 1990s, ocean temperatures were taken from ship engine intake valves. Unsurprising engine rooms are warmer than the ocean. In the 1990s, they switched over to buoys, which drift around and send data directly to satellites automatically, and more importantly, there are thousands of them taking real time data. Since the buoys sit directly in water, it introduced a cold bias vs the engine intake data, which the NOAA accounted for in the new record.” The new study created 3 independent data sets from buoys, engine intakes, and satellites and concluded: 2015 NOAA data is best estimate of global ocean temps and NOAA scientists were not ‘cooking the books’.
Meanwhile, Search for Climate Change on USGS.GOV sites….it will tell you its Exploring: Effects Of Climate Change..
—>No results found, please refine or try another search => screen shot.
George Carlin’s American Dream…add suppressing cc and offering misleading testimony to the general public: the scientists accounted for a cold bias and were accused of ‘manipulating data’.
Unfortunately, the rate of warming is increasing, but is it to late to recover from climate change? The infographic on the global climate budget clearly shows the impacts do not ‘magically’ disappear even if emissions were zeroed out today as it will take at least a generation for Planet Earth to recover. What are *you* doing to ‘make a ding in the World’? Supporting a carbon tax? Considering a Hybrid? Finding those Home Air Leaks? Make that change.
Thanks, Al Bore. We will go with your lead, if and when you give up your giant energy gobbling house and private jet trips.
Trump style diversionary tactics as usual.!
It looks like the trolls are alive and well here. Ignore the conclusions of thousands of climate scientists, and of every national academy of sciences that has gone on record, concerning the reality of global warming (aka climate change). Just mention Al Gore! As if he were the author of all these thousands of science papers.
thousands wow..
That is great, maybe you could get some people who know data analytic s and data visualization backgrounds…
Using truncated graphs, for and claim them as evidence is totally lacking in ethics friend, but maybe you don’t understand science the way it is usually done by Millions of people with Science degrees…
Be honest, won’t look so SHADY!!
Thanks
900-1250 AD Ice melted on Greenland and Eric the Red’s Clan established 252 Farms on Greenland. 1300-1850 Little Ice Age Greenland Ice formed again and the Farms were Abandoned. 1816 was the year of no Summer in New England States and in Europe because it Frosted all Summer.
Obviously the CO2 Emissions were much less in those Days. When those conditions are exceeded we might begin to believe “scientist” seeking grants to study Global Warming.
Meantime in the real world 3rd world countries are being denied development based upon a SCAM. 500,000 People die each year because Scammers have Banned DDT with another bogus “scientific study”
It is time the Department of Justice opened an Investigation on CO2 Global Warming. If Sessions is to Timid to face the real political criminals Fire him and hire Juliani or Christie.
Temperatures are Beyond Those of the Medieval Times They have nothing but Fake News.
“The Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern: higher than average solar radiation/less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming), and changes in ocean circulation patterns. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming.”
Spoil sport!
REALLY? So the data today showing it is not warming as much as indicated and the climate models are wrong??? It is a religion and since religion is complete faith without facts then it cannot be argued or you are a modern day Heretic called a Denier.
Planet Earth is Warming at an Increasing Rate. This infographic shows that global warming or climate change –which by definition refers to the human contribution – clearly indicates that GW does not ‘magically’ shutdown–>decades.
Most experts are skeptical that CO2 can economically be sucked out of the air with negative emissions. “carbon dioxide still represents only one in 2,500 molecules in the air. That means an effective air-capture machine would need to push vast amounts of air past amines to get enough carbon dioxide to stick to them and then regenerate the amines to capture more. That would require a lot of energy and thus be very expensive, hence: air capture “is not currently an economically viable approach to mitigating climate change.”
Not only that, but anyone with half a brain can tell you that the world is flat.
Ad Hominem attack…shows your total lack of debate skills, thanks for making it so obvious
OK you have had a chance to rant. From now on you need to include full, peer-reviewed research publication references for each of these claims you make when you start throwing all sorts of selected and disconnected facts. Otherwise go find another place to wave your arms. My site = my rules.
The primary cause of the Year Without a Summer was the eruption of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia. Volcanoes emit CO2 but large eruptions also produce stratospheric aerosols with a much greater cooling effect so the overall climate impact, which lasts about a year, is cooling. This has been seen with many major eruptions over the years but the YWAS was the most dramatic. Nevertheless the residence time of the aerosols is limited so there is no impact on long-term climate change.
What caused the Warming from 950-1250? What caused the Little Ice Age from 1350-1850?
You might want to consider how the slope (dT/dt) of the temperature changes in the periods you mentioned compares to the slope of the changes we’ve seen in this last warming period. Simply put, they don’t compare at all.
Oh no! You mean Science? And Calculus! Argh!! 🙂
Historical, precise monitoring data such as we have today is not available for these periods, and they were less dramatic than the major ice ages and so left little geological evidence, consequently the exact mechanism cannot be proven. Nevertheless the LIA is correlated closely with the Maunder minimum, a long period when sunspot activity was clearly atypical and solar luminosity may have been affected, as well as unusually high volcanic activity. Importantly, both changes in solar driving and volcanic aerosols would be obvious today if they were occurring, that is, unless the Trump Administration succeeds in shutting down the Earth radiation budget sensors currently operaing on Goresat.
Has there ever been a congressional science committee as anti-science as this committee has demonstrated itself to be? This should be a concern for everyone when such a committee pedals lies, so readily rejects science, and so many of its members demonstrate themselves to be scientifically illiterate.
It’s maddening and at the same stupefying that so few don’t see the serious dysfunction in this committee.
NASA reports directly to the White House, GOOD to KNOW!
On “manipulation”:
Messiness is simply the nature of available data. Just a fact of life. Take any single source of historical data, or proxies, and you will find lots of problems with the dataset. I don’t know about taking water temperatures from ships, but if true, clearly that data requires adjustment.
And therein lies the issue. Statistical correction of datasets is straightforward, transparent, and necessary. I’d suggest some course work in qualitative statistics before assigning personal motivation to data correction.
And even so- even though many datasets are troubled by unclear sigfigs, by clear biases in collection, or other problems – taken as a whole the conclusions are stark. And obvious.