Political Climate
Jun 03, 2017
A Climate Scientist Is Smeared for Blowing the Whistle on ‘Corrected’ Data

By Julie Kelly

The scandal is growing, as Congress investigates and NOAA brings in outside experts to review a key study. Less than 72 hours after a federal whistleblower exposed shocking misconduct at a key U.S. climate agency, the CEO of the nation’s top scientific group was already dismissing the matter as no biggie.

On February 7, Rush Holt, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), told a congressional committee that allegations made by a high-level climate scientist were simply an “internal dispute between two factions” and insisted that the matter was “not the making of a big scandal.” (This was moments after Holt lectured the committee that science is “a set of principles dedicated to discovery,” and that it requires “humility in the face of evidence.” Who knew?) Three days earlier, on February 4, John Bates, a former official with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - he was in charge of that agency’s climate-data archive - posted a lengthy account detailing how a 2015 report on global warming was mishandled.

In the blog Climate Etc., Bates wrote a specific and carefully sourced 4,100-word expose that accuses Tom Karl, his ex-colleague at NOAA, of influencing the results and release of a crucial paper that purports to refute the pause in global warming. Karl’s study was published in Science in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders would meet in Paris to agree on a costly climate change pact; the international media and climate activists cheered Karl’s report as the final word disproving the global-warming pause. But Bates, an acclaimed expert in atmospheric sciences who left NOAA last year, says there’s a lot more to the story. He reveals that “in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets,… we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming.’ Karl’s report was “an effort 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.”


Agency protocol to properly archive data was not followed, and the computer that processed the data had suffered a “complete failure,” according to Bates. In a lengthy interview published in the Daily Mail the next day, Bates said: They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer. Instead of taking these claims with the level of scrutiny and seriousness they deserve, most in the scientific establishment quickly moved to damage-control mode. In more testimony to the House Science Committee last week, Holt pulled one sentence from an article published in an environmental journal that morning, quoting Bates as saying, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with the data but rather really of timing a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.” (I guess that alone isn’t enough to raise any red flags in climate science.) Holt went on to tell the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which has been investigating the Karl study since 2015, that “all [Bates] is doing is calling out a former colleague for not following agency standards.” This man of science intentionally overlooked the damning charges in Bates’s own post to search out a tiny nugget in a biased article. Apparently, discovery and humility in the face of evidence are valid only when they result in politically desirable outcomes.

I asked the AAAS (which publishes Science, where the Karl study first appeared) why the head of their organization selected that one quote and failed to address the other issues Bates had raised: not vetting experimental data, failing to meet agency standards, and rushing to publish the report. Science editor in chief Jeremy Berg told me that Holt’s statement to Congress “was consistent with impressions from other private communications that had been conveyed to Holt” (emphasis added). Apparently, discovery and humility in the face of evidence are valid only when they result in politically desirable outcomes; impressions and feelings carry more weight otherwise. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the AAAS and Science are trying to downplay the conflict.

Bates says that Science violated its own policy for archiving and making data available when it published the Karl study. The policy states that “climate data should be archived in the NOAA climate repository or other public databases.” Bates maintains that there is an urgent need for a “systematic change ... to scientific publishing.” The science media also went into overdrive to twist Bates’s words and allegations. Science ran its own article on February 8, with the headline “How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study.”

The magazine suggests that Bates’s actions are due to a personal grudge. In a post on his website RealClimate, climatologist Gavin Schmidt downplayed the scandal as a “NOAA-thing burger” and accused Bates of adding “obviously wrong claims to his litany” and of “let[ting] his imagination run beyond what he could actually show.” And in a completely misleading article, a climate blogger for The Guardian claimed that Bates feared that climate “deniers” would misuse his information (although Bates did not say that). The Guardian blogger also lamented that “consumers of biased right-wing news outlets that employ faux science journalists were grossly misinformed by alternative facts and fake news.” Don’t expect this to stop any time soon.

Climate alarmists and profiteers will only intensify their smear campaign as this unravels. Congress is now expanding its investigation of NOAA, Bates has indicated that more information and documents are forthcoming, and NOAA is now saying it will bring in outside experts to analyze the Karl report. As Holt told the House Science Committee, “when one’s cherished beliefs and partisan ideologies and wishful thinking have turned out to be wanting, scientific evidence is most likely all that remains.” No doubt he completely missed the irony of his own statement.

May 22, 2017
President Trump and EPA must Revisit and Revoke the Scientifically Invalid CO2 Endangerment Finding

The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council ONCE AGAIN calls on President Trump and EPA to Revisit and Revoke the Scientifically Invalid CO2 Endangerment Finding

Key Points:

1. Just Released, Even More Definitive research findings make it even more certain that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a beneficial gas that should not be regulated.

2. If the Endangerment Finding is not vacated, whether the current administration likes it or not, it is certain that electric utility, automotive and many other industries will face ongoing EPA CO2 regulation.

3. This scientifically illiterate regulation will raise energy prices thereby reducing U.S. economic growth and jobs.

May 22, 2017

The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council announces that on May 8, 2017 it filed with EPA a Supplement to the Council’s January 20, 2017 Petition asking the Agency to reconsider the scientifically invalid Endangerment Finding on which all Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations are based. The Supplement may be found here.

The Council’s original Petition (here demonstrated that the Endangerment Finding is nothing more than assumptions that have each been disproved by the most relevant empirical evidence from the real world.  The original Petition was substantially based on a major peer-reviewed 2016 scientific paper by James Wallace, John Christy and Joseph D’Aleo (Wallace 2016) that analyzed the best available temperature data sets and “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important tropical and global temperature time series data sets analyzed.” The full text of Wallace 2016 may be found here.

The Supplement to the Petition now brings to the attention of EPA new developments, since the date of the Petition, that render the invalidation of the Endangerment Finding yet more definitive.  First among the new developments is a new extensively Peer Reviewed April 2017 Research Report, also from Wallace, Christy and D’Aleo (Wallace 2017).  Wallace 2017 can be found here.

Wallace 2017 takes a totally different analytical approach than Wallace 2016, and specifically estimates the impacts of the key natural factors, including solar, volcanic and oceanic/ENSO activity, on tropical and global temperatures.  It concludes that once these natural factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “natural factor adjusted” warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric CO2 levels. That is, these natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. This research, like Wallace (2016) found that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the (14) temperature data sets that were analyzed. At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, temperatures.

The Supplement to the Petition also demonstrates the improper use of Climate Models relied upon by EPA in the attribution of warming to human-related CO2 emissions. Court records make it very clear that the premise of using climate models in attribution is that such models are properly validated, provide reliable forecasts, and are unable to reproduce observed warming without the additional forcing from anthropogenic Green House Gases (GHGs). Wallace (2016) and Wallace (2017) both independently demonstrate that this premise is false. Both reports show that natural factors alone explain all the warming. Conversely, Climate models show a pattern of warming in the tropical troposphere that simply does not exist in nature - the Missing Tropical Hot Spot. Thus, the Climate Models have been invalidated and cannot be relied upon by EPA for attribution analysis in its Endangerment Finding. Therefore, simple but insistent logic precludes the use of invalidated climate models to attribute warming to human emissions of GHGs, and requires reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding.

The Supplement to the Petition also puts in the record before EPA information from the March 29, 2017 testimony of John Christy before Congress which also dealt with the Missing Tropical Hot Spot issue.  Dr. Christy’s testimony can be found here. Dr. Christy’s Congressional testimony showed that the temperature trend, projected by climate models on which EPA relies, differs from the actual trend of observations at the 99% confidence level.  Thus, the models used by EPA to conclude that greenhouse gases pose a “danger” to human health and welfare have failed a simple “scientific method” test.  They have been invalidated.

The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding becomes more blindingly obvious and undeniable with each day’s accumulation of empirical data.  It is time for an honest and rigorous scientific re-evaluation of this Obama-era political document. The Nation has been taken down a tragically foolish path of pointless regulations and wasteful mal-investments to “solve” a problem which does not actually exist. Our leaders must summon the courage to acknowledge the truth and act accordingly.

The Council brought its Petition because the Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations threaten, as President Obama himself conceded, to make the price of electricity “skyrocket”. All Americans will benefit from a new era where the cheapest sources of energy can also compete and prevail in the marketplace.


Icecap Note: in the areas where the green agenda has been aggressively pursued as in California and in the northeast with RGGI, rate payers are paying the highest prices in the nation for electricity.


The Sierra Club and UCS which pushed RGGI and successively fought the introduction of a new natural gas pipeline needed to meet the electrical generation needs of the region as nuclear plants, oil and coal plants are decommissioned. The region is attempting to bring in hydropower from Quebec through the Northern Pass project but environmentalists are fighting that too. The small and and increasingly unpopular wind projects approved are unreliable, as Europe sadly found, requiring ready back-up generation or hydropower. The result of the green forced rate increases has been a loss of industry to states where power is cheaper.

CO2 is a beneficial gas as former co founder of Greenpeace, Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore presents here.

May 16, 2017
New U.S. Chamber Report Demonstrates Need for Northeast Pipelines

Press Release Monday, April 24, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C.  The lack of pipeline infrastructure in the northeast has resulted in some of the highest electricity rates in the nation for families and business -and it will only get worse, according to a new report by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.

The latest installment in the Energy Institute’s Energy Accountability Series asks the question: “What if pipelines aren’t built into the northeast?” In the states examined, the report finds that the lack of additional pipeline infrastructure would cost over 78,000 jobs and $7.6 billion in GDP by 2020.

“Environmental groups seeking to ‘keep it in the ground’ are fighting to block virtually every project that would bring additional natural gas into in the northeast,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Energy Institute. “As a result, residents in the northeast are paying the highest electricity rates in the continental United States, with no relief in sight if infrastructure is not built. High energy prices are costing the region jobs and income, so maintaining the status quo will be painful.”

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2015, Connecticut had the highest electricity rates in the nation (lower 48 states), while Massachusetts ranks third, Rhode Island is second, New Hampshire ranks fifth, New York is eighth, Vermont is seventh, New Jersey is eight, and Maine comes in at ninth.


Meanwhile, continued development of shale oil and gas in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and elsewhere has helped reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy and brought back thousands of manufacturing jobs. However, the lack of access to markets in the northeast will cost those states jobs and revenue, which is also covered in the report.

The resources they produce could be used to relieve capacity problems in the northeast, but continued legal challenges and political opposition have stalled or slowed planned infrastructure projects such as the Constitution Pipeline and Access Northeast pipeline.

“As the regulatory and price environment continues to encourage the use of natural gas, northeast states will find themselves increasingly starved of the energy needed to power the economy and keep the lights on,” said Harbert. “Our analysis demonstrates that there is simply not enough capacity to meet demand, and families, consumers, and businesses will all pay the price.”

The economic impact analysis in the report estimates the potential impacts over the next 4 years, and includes all recently announced pipeline projects. To estimate economic impacts, the report uses publicly available economic data from announced pipeline projects, energy demand forecasts, and announced retirements of nuclear generators.

The inputs were run through the IMPLAN model to estimate the overall macroeconomic effects of preserving the status quo, which effectively prevents new pipeline infrastructure from being developed in the region.

To see a breakdown by state, visit. The report includes analysis for New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.

The Energy Accountability Series takes a substantive look at what could happen if energy proposals from political candidates and interest groups were actually adopted.


ICECAP COMMENT: The Sierra Club is running ads here in NH saying they are helping with the RGGI and their ‘successful’ blocking of natural gas pipelines to save northeast ratepayers on energy. Actually because of the Sierra Club blockage of NATGAS and RGGI, we pay the highest prices for electricity in the nation (together with California), twice the rate of some other states. The Chamber of Commerce says this will lead to still higher prices and job losses. I have always been environmentally conscious and a conservationist but this is criminal overreach, and I am especially appalled by the lies in advertising.

Page 5 of 617 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »