North Pole Movement

Like herpes.
Alarmists would have had us believe NEW YORK CITY! would be under water by now...and that the poor polar bears are all dead (think of the sad children-sniff).

 

Glad we're not talking Lamar Odem, which is a distraction by media to look away from important issues like Lamar Smiths' request to release pertinant documents.

 

As stated before; The data is available. The methods used are described. What he wanted beyond that, went far and beyond, was email, and that has never before been needed to replicate findings. In other words he is not really interested in understanding the science, and merely seeks to discredit, on whatever basis he can.

Maybe we should disbelieve the findings at CERN, until all email communication between scientists there has been made public

 

Isn't CO2 necessary and was a building block that created our atmosphere.
Don't volcanoes spew an awful amount of co2, and doesn't Earth absorb co2 as it's natural rhythm-
Really not sure if this supports my argument:
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/origin-atmosphere

 

Are they? Certainly some of it is but I know I've never even seen a link to the details of how the calculations were made.

It may or may not be "far and beyond" that. NOAA's position is rather tenuous as well. Simply put theire is no rational in US law for claiming the info requested is "confidential". Possibly one of the variants of FOUO but especially if it on government computers witholding it from other government organizations including Congress is problematic. I also don't see how it can "protect the scientific process". The only semi legitmate rational that I can see is not wanting to "compromise" the possibility of publishing papaers on the topic.

That's one possibility but far from a certainty. Note also that the CO2 proponents have been caught trying to surpress scientific information that contradicts their position in the past and have played rather fast and loose with the data as well. To be fair those on the other extreme haven't been much if any better.

I do know that when this was first reported the information I saw made it look very much like they didn't like the numbers so they found a way to massage the data until they got the numbers they wanted.

 

Science is not refuted based on emails between colleagues.

Science is refuted by better science. None of the scientists questioning the results want to see their colleagues' email...

Papers on Data comparison and methodologies:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4

The Paper
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/noaa-science-pas-de-hiatus.pdf

WRT Lamar, It is a certainty, as he is a well-known, public champion of Climate Change Denial. His actions are entirely political, and amount to harassment.

 

It certainly can be, particularly if one or more of them is purposly biasing the study. There have been a number of incidents over the last few years where emails have played a part in discrediting certain studies.

But what constitutes "better science". Indeed simply spotting a bias, perhaps not even an intended one can bring results to question.

How do you know that? Have you talked to all fo those questioning the results?

The first was a long way from detaiing the methods and assumptions, while it did contain enough information to allow one to further investigate some of the issues other important items seem to have been addressed with a hand wave. As for the second it only took me a few minutes to spot some rather questionable assumptions. How big of impact these will have is an open question.

What his position is isn't really that important. As long as the information is addressed with logic and reason. If not skewer him then. Denying him data is hardly the act of a scientist. Your assumptions as to his actions being "entirely political" and amounting to "harassement" are not well supported.

Part of the problem of course is that we don't know exactly what he asked for or what he was given. However there's a serious question of whether or not holding back the requested information is either legal or within the spirit of true scientific research.

 

Well, I'm glad you spotted questionable assumptions. Why don't you detail them in paper and get them published? Of course, you are expected to have read and understood the source material as well. It may very well be, your quandry is with the source material, and not the paper in question. I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it.

I'll happily deny anyone my email: I'm not holding public office. He wasn't denied scientific data. And giving him all email based on some other case years ago, by some other scientist, well... Let's ask Lamar (who is holding public office) for his email and communications. There have been multiple cases of politicans being all sorts of dirty and corrupt, even in the USA. Seeing that is the standard to which we are holding people...

 

You can deny anyone your emai as long as it sits on your machine and there is no court order requiring you to supply it. The rules change when you are at work, working for the government, and on a government computer. It was emails that made it clear not all that long ago that there was a conserted effort on the part of some to deny publication to scientific papers that did not support their positoin in this regard no matter how good the science. There have also been emails that help prove that research in other areas had been fabricated. So yes requesting emails in at least some cases is valid. If one suspects Lamar of such abuses a freedom of information request might indeed force him to release the info a governement investigatory body including another legilstor might not even need that. Note that something like that has happened recently where a congressman wanted the Ranger School records of the women who passed (although these would be PII and not subject to arbitrary release) and some others requested his Ranger School records. Neither has got them todate and according to the school they may no longer exist. Which is getting off the point a bit. One of the functions of Congress is to investigate things and within that pervue a request of emails isn't unreasonable. That's not to say that he might not try and do something unreasonable with them but that's a different matter.

 

You don't get to pluck emails from a server merely because you disagree with the results of some research paper. You should have to provide a lot more grounds for suspicion than that.

Some societies are less concerned with the niceties of due process, and certain politicians will of course see themselves on a crusade that sits well above those rules.

 

Governent servers operate under different rules than private servers. Unless the information is classified, or contains certain other narrowly restricted data if it's on a governent server then it's pretty much available to anyone. Although private citizens need to file a freedom of information request. So no it doesn't take a whole lot more than a suspicion that something might have occured. Now if there's nothing there it can be pointed out that he wasted a fair amount of effort proving that the material he though was questionable wasn't. But that's not a bad result in my book either.

 

I don't know too much about US Law, but I'm sure someone can sort out the details

Privacy Act Exceptions
This section describes the exceptions to the "no disclosure to third parties without consent rule."

7. DISCLOSURE TO ANOTHER AGENCY FOR CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
Records may be disclosed to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United State Government for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the specific law enforcement activity. This includes disclosure to another agency or unit of State or local governments. Disclosure to foreign agencies must be established as a routine use, if appropriate.
Blanket requests for all records pertaining to an individual are not permitted. Disclosure may be at the initiation of the agency maintaining the record when a violation of law is suspected, provided that such disclosure is an established routine use. The authority to request the records may be delegated by the head of the agency, but never below a section chief. U.S. Attorneys and, in some cases, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, have been delegated this authority.

9. DISCLOSURE TO EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS
Records may be disclosed to either house of Congress or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee, any joint committee of Congress, or subcommittee of any such joint committee. This does not authorize disclosure to members of Congress acting in their individual capacities, without the consent of the individual.

11. DISCLOSURE MANDATED BY COURT ORDER OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
A subpoena does NOT qualify under this exemption unless it is specifically approved by a JUDGE. The order must be signed by a judge. The Office of Inspector General of another agency is not a court under this section-neither is an Administrative Law Judge deemed to be a judge, nor the Merit Systems Protection Board deemed to be a court.


There are other exceptions, but they're not really relevant as far as I can see.

 

But the material must meet the requirements of the privacy act. That means things like health records, SSNs, etc. A conversation about technical matters wouldn't be covered unless it met certain very specific criteria. Such as one party is a private individual or company and there is an existing non disclosue agreement, or it's considered competition sensative (and the competition is for a federal contract), or it's specifically stated as company proprietary information. In any of these cases the reason for rejecting the request must be that it is covered by the privacy act and the rational for its being covered. That wasn't the rational given for withhoding the information.

 

Antarctic ice is growing at an alarming rate(hehehe). Since 1992 to 2008, ice there accumulated between 112 to 82 billion tons per year. And it looks more like we are going into a cooling phase. Pretty sure alarmists picked the wrong horse to bet on.
Meltdown Myth by James Delingpole:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

Wondering if all the extra ice weight in Antarctica, and the loss of ice in the Arctic hasn't effected the Earths natural wobble.

 

There was an article on NPR this morning on the impact of deforestation in the Amazon. It didn't get into the global climate impacts but did mention some regional ones. However there were indications that certainly suggest global impacts are possible. The focus wasn't on CO2 however but on O2 production and atmospheric water vapor. To me it suggest that deforestation may have considerably more impact than previously considered.

 

Indeed if you looked at what the models predicted the actual rise in temperature was closer to no rise than to anything from the models I've seen. That said slash and burn clearing of the Amazon rainforest looks like a bad idea on so many fronts it's very hard to justify.

 

The left has a policy of just continuing to repeat agendas over and over until the left media drills it into all kardashian watchers.
Whistleblowers ignored:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/whistleblowers-claim-noaa-rushed-contentious-pause-buster-study-despite-reservations/

 

Looks like GW has been a weapon for some time.
GW creates every problem ever encountered. ..Lies on top of more lies.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/22/flashback-1941-scientist-claims-global-warming-caused-hitler-warmer-temps-may-produce-a-trend-toward-dictatorial-govts-people-are-are-more-docile-easily-led-in-warm-weather/

And
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/