tisdale blog

<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1.5em 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.125em; font-weight: 500;">Hassling a scientist for unwelcome results</h3>In June, a scientist named Thomas Karl, along with colleagues, published a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Science called <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus."</a> It cast doubt on the global warming <a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/global-warming-pause/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">"pause"</a> that has become the latest cause célèbre for climate change, er, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9393217/ap-climate-doubters-truthers" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">doubters</a>.That did not sit well with Smith, who is a <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-change-religion-1429832149" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">doubter himself</a>, like many of the Republicans on his committee and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3608427/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">more than half of all House Republicans</a>. And it was the subject of much heated attack in the denial-o-sphere.So Smith has gone after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where Karl works as the director of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). For a play-by-play, I recommend <a href="http://democrats.science.house.gov/letter/ranking-member-johnson-letter-chairman-smith-noaa-subpoena" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">this scorching letter</a> to Smith from committee ranking member Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX).In it, she notes that Smith made three written requests for information about Karl's study, all of which NOAA responded to in writing and in personal briefings. "Moreover," she writes, "NOAA attempted to explain certain aspects of the methodology about which the Majority was apparently confused." (Imagine how that meeting went.)Among Smith's repeated demands: access to the data and methods behind NOAA's work on climate. Except, as NOAA and Democratic members of the committee kept trying to explain, those data and methods are <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/noaa-global-surface-temperature-noaaglobaltemp" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">posted on the internet</a>. Anyone can access them. Yet Republicans kept demanding them.Unsatisfied with the total cooperation and untrammeled access his committee received, Smith <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-house-science-committees-witch-hunt-against-noaa-scientists-934" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">issued a subpoena</a>:<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 1em; padding: 0px 15px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(139, 142, 141); -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: 24.75px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">On October 13, the committee subpoenaed nearly seven years of internal deliberations and communications among scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including "all documents and communications" related to NOAA’s measurement of our climate."All documents and communications" would presumably include emails, preliminary drafts, peer review comments, notes, audio recordings, and a treasure trove of other material. This would mean thousands upon thousands of records for employees to identify and go through and analyze for no clearly stated purpose.NOAA was given two weeks to comply.</blockquote>(Coincidentally, the very following day, longtime climate skeptic blogger Bob Tisdale published a <a href="https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/september-2015-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 100ms ease 0s; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: 700; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-image: none !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-position: initial !important; background-repeat: initial !important;">long post</a> calling into question the very adjustments to temperature data that were mentioned in Smith's subpoena.)To be clear, Smith has not alleged any corruption, wrongdoing, or even bad science. He hasn't alleged anything. Nor has he offered any justification for why he needs access to NOAA internal communications. The new rules mean that he no longer has to explain or justify himself to anyone. He's just hoping to find something he can use...