Climategate Update: Judicial Watch Sues for Records between Key Obama Admin Scientists Involved In Climate Controversies

 

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to compel the U.S. Department of Commerce to turn over all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).

The suit was filed after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to a February 6 FOIA request seeking

  • All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.
  • The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.

Holdren, a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.

According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. …

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a

Michael Mann Vs the Truth at Congressional Climate Hearing – Caught in Multiple Provable Falsehoods

by JAMES DELINGPOLE 31 Mar 201751

Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.

Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)

This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here.

So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:

“Liar, liar. Your pants on fire.”

Here’s the evidence:

Porkie Number One

Mann told the Congressional hearing he had no association or affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute (one of the numerous ad hoc organisations formed in order to give the harassment of climate sceptics an air of scientific credibility).

Yet according to his CV he sits on the Climate Accountability Institute’s advisory board and has done since 2014.

Porkie Number Two

Mann denied having called his fellow climate scientist and special witness, former Georgia Tech Judith Curry, a “denier”.

“A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier,” he solemnly told the hearing.

To which Judith Curry, sitting next to him, replied: “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”

You can watch the moment where Curry smacks him down below:

Mann then proceeded indignantly to quibble that though he might have called Curry a “climate science denier” he hadn’t called her a “climate change denier”. [As if there’s any meaningful distinction between the two slurs]. But this claim – as Stephen McIntyre notes – was also a lie.

confronted with written evidence that he called Curry “climate science denier”, Mann said he hadnt called her “climate CHANGE denier”.

WaPo: Weather Service made poor decision in overplaying Nor’easter snow predictions

By Jason Samenow

The Weather Service, which has a mission to protect life and property, may have felt it was best serving the public by stressing the worst-case scenario for the big cities. But it’s a risky strategy that can cost credibility.

Trust is so important in weather prediction because, when it is eroded, the public may take forecasts less seriously in life-or-death situations.

The Weather Service doesn’t have to limit itself to communicating the worst-case scenario for the public to pay attention to a high-stakes forecast. The public is smarter than it is given credit for; it can understand uncertainty if it is explained well; and it appreciates knowing about changes to the forecast.

When Atlanta broadcast meteorologist Glenn Burns asked his viewers about the Associated Press report that the Weather Service decided not to revise its forecast even when presented with new information, many were insulted.

“We are not children,” said Jill Nelmark. “Give the most accurate forecast and accurate update.”

“It makes the NWS look less reliable for future events,” said Josh Walls.

“Give me the facts and trust me to make an intelligent decision,” said Kris Chandler.

“I think they should have been honest and said that it might not be as bad. But to still prepare in case it was,” said Suzanne Blanton.

The New York news blog Gothamist reacted to the AP report with this snarky headline: National Weather Service: Sorry, You’re Too Stupid To Trust With The REAL Forecast

The influential media aggregator Matt Drudge tweeted, “What is going on with National Weather Service? Lots of misses piling up.” He added: “Overreaction by govts, bad forecasting … very troubling trend.”

 …

Fake Weather: Weather Service Rejects Accurate Snow Forecasts — Manipulates Public Instead – Copies Tactics From Climate Debate

Climate Depot Analysis

WASHINGTON DC – What the hell!? The National Weather Service (NWS) has now officially admitted its highest mission seems to be manipulating public behavior, not informing the public of the most accurate weather forecast.

Weather Con Borrows From Climate Con! WEATHER SERVICE DECIDED LAST MINUTE NOT TO CUT SNOW FORECAST – “Out of extreme caution we decided to stick with higher amounts,” Greg Carbin, chief of forecast operations at the Weather Prediction Center in suburban Maryland, told The Associated Press. Carbin said a last-minute change downgrading snowfall totals might have given people the wrong message that the storm was no longer a threat….Dramatically changing forecasts in what meteorologists call “the windshield wiper effect” only hurts the public, said Bob Henson, a meteorologist for the private Weather Underground.  (Kudos to AP’s Seth Borenstein for a hard-hitting and informative article.)

Morano: According to the NWS, informing the public about the latest downgraded snow forecast would have ‘given people the wrong message’ and telling the public the storm fizzled “only hurts the public”!” We have now officially expanded the era of “fake news” to include “fake weather.”

This line of reasoning and manipulation of forecasts is an insult to the public and to weather forecasting professional everywhere.

The NWS’s primary function is to inform the public in situations like this, not make forecasts based on how to best influence public behavior. It is not the “National Psychiatric Service”, but the National WEATHER Service. The NWS has taken it upon themselves to decide that the public was unable to hand the truth about the 2017 Blizzard Bust.

The public expects scientifically accurate and up to the minute forecasts, not calculated politically dubious forecasts that hide the truth. At least it was refreshing to know that Washington DC, local WTOP News Radio (103.5 FM) bucked the NWS trend and featured meteorologists on Tuesday admitting the storm was fizzling for DC. It was heartening that some meteorologists were more concerned about giving the public accurate forecasts, not treating us like children who need to be lied to.

NWS Aping ‘Global Warming’ Tactics!?

Sadly, the NWS has sunk to the levels now routinely seen in the “global warming” debate. The climate change debate in many instances has morphed into the attitude of “we must not reveal to the public exactly how uncertain we are about our dire ‘global warming’ forecasts because they may not …

Weather Con Borrows From Climate Con! WEATHER SERVICE DECIDED LAST MINUTE NOT TO CUT SNOW FORECAST


WASHINGTON (AP) — Before the first snow fell, U.S. meteorologists realized there was a good chance the late-winter storm wasn’t going to produce giant snow totals in big Northeast cities as predicted.

But they didn’t change their forecasts because they said they didn’t want to confuse the public.

National Weather Service meteorologists in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington held a conference call Monday afternoon about computer models that dramatically cut predicted snow amounts. They decided to keep the super snowy warnings.

“Out of extreme caution we decided to stick with higher amounts,” Greg Carbin, chief of forecast operations at the Weather Prediction Center in suburban Maryland, told The Associated Press. “I actually think in the overall scheme that the actions (by states and cities) taken in advance of the event were exceptional.”

On Monday, the weather service predicted 18 to 24 inches of snow in New York City. By late Tuesday afternoon, Central Park was covered with a little more than 7 inches of snow with rain and sleet still falling. Other areas, including upstate New York and Connecticut, received more than a foot and a half of snow. Swaths of Pennsylvania were walloped by 20 to 30 inches of snow.

Carbin said a last-minute change downgrading snowfall totals might have given people the wrong message that the storm was no longer a threat. It still was, but real danger was from ice and sleet in places like New York City and Washington, he said.

Dramatically changing forecasts in what meteorologists call “the windshield wiper effect” only hurts the public, said Bob Henson, a meteorologist for the private Weather Underground.

Carbin stood by the decision.

“The nature of the beast is that there’s always uncertainty in every forecast and we have to get better at describing that,” Carbin said.

The right amount of precipitation fell, but it came down as rain and sleet because the rain-snow line moved inland, according to Carbin and private forecasters.

The rain-snow line is a 50 mile wide north-south swath where cold Arctic air from the north and west clashes with warm, moist air from the Atlantic. West of the snow line saw heavy snow while east had rain and sleet.

The snow line happens to center on New York City so it was a bigger deal than if the line had been over a rural area, said

‘Global warming’ dominated by ‘fake news’ fueled by manipulated data

For decades, we’ve heard the Chickens Little cry that the sky is warming.  Then, in 2009, a hack of climate researchers’ emails at the University of East Anglia indicated that things weren’t quite on the up-and-up, science-wise.  Climatologists had massaged global temperature records to bolster their claims of man-made global warming, and they had destroyed emails to skirt FOIA requests.  “Climategate,” as it came to be called, suggested that many of the alarming reports about global warming had been fake news.

It happened again about a month ago.  On February 4, Dr. John Bates, “senior scientist” at NOAA’s temperature data center (until his retirement in late 2016), reported that his own organization had not quite been on the up-and-up, science-wise.  He alleged that Thomas Karl, director of the temperature data center (until his own retirement earlier last year), had “breached [NOAA’s] own rules on scientific integrity when [he] published [a] sensational but flawed report” and rushed it into print in order to influence global leaders at the U.N. Climate Conference in Paris in 2015.

That paper, called the “Pausebuster,” cited new data purporting to show that the hiatus in global warming since 1998 had not occurred.  According to Dr. Bates, however, Dr. Karl had put his “thumb on the scale” by releasing new data that were “misleading” and “unverified.”  Furthermore, it is unlikely ever to be verified: Dr. Bates also reported that the computer used to process the data “had suffered a complete failure.”  Hello, Climategate 2.0!

Oh, you’d never heard of it?  I bet you’ve heard a lot about the 2015 Paris Climate Accords that were agreed to in part because of the fake “Pausebuster” data.  But the mainstream media have little interest writing stories that refute liberal assumptions, so fake news becomes no news.  To hear about Climategate 2.0, you’d have to follow alternative sources like Manhattan Contrarian (where I first learned of it), or Judith Curry, or Watt’s Up with That?, or the U.K.’s Daily Mail.

This pattern of fake news followed by no news has been repeated throughout the era of climate change fabulist fear-mongering.  In 1989, according to the Associated Press, a director of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) predicted that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels … by the year 2000.”  This was followed by no news

Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to the MIT letter objecting to his petition to Trump to withdraw from the UNFCC.

Apparently, MIT didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.

March 9, 2017

President Donald Trump
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.  With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”

For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.

Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

We note that:

  • The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
  • It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.   Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
  • Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded

Listen Now: Morano: NOAA RESEARCHERS VIOLATED AGENCIES DATA QUALITY

MARC MORANO: NOAA RESEARCHERS VIOLATED THE AGENCIES DATA QUALITY AND STORAGE STANDARDS

FEBRUARY 21, 2017

Decorated National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research scientist John Bates has become a whistleblower, disclosing NOAA scientist violated agency protocols in a rush to publish unverified research for political reasons.

Marc Morano publisher of Climate Depot discusses the growing scandal surrounding newly retired decorated National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research scientist John Bates decision to become a whistleblower and disclose how NOAA scientist violated agency protocols in a rush to publish unverified research that purported to show there had been no 18 year long pause in rising temperatures as every other temperature data set in the world recorded, rather temperatures had risen at an alarming rate. The scientists violated the agency’s rules, rushing to publication data which had yet to be tested and confirmed in order to influence the outcome of the Paris climate negotiations in 2015. In a second breach of agency protocol, the scientists failed to properly archive and store their datasets. Subsequently, some of the original data sets were lost when the computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure.

Morano says the NOAA researchers learned nothing from the Climategate scandal of 2009, ignoring the need for transparency and accountability bringing climate science into further disrepute and public mistrust.

Sign the Petition: Investigate NOAA impartially – No Warmist Whitewash!

Petition: Investigate NOAA impartially
No Whitewash!

Friend,

Did government researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tamper with temperature data to boost the global warming campaign?

Dr. John Bates, a climate scientist and former official with NOAA, says they did.

This needs to be fully investigated, but we must not allow climate campaigners to turn this investigation into an exercise in whitewashing.

CFACT is petitioning President Trump to ensure the people investigating NOAA are genuine, impartial outsiders. 

Please sign this important petition today and forward it to as many friends as possible.

The climate campaign will use its influence to whitewash improper practices at NOAA, but only if we let them.

Sign the petition and tell the President to find out what’s really been going on at NOAA.
For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director &
Co-Founder