The latest is a news article in the Washington Times:

NOAA agrees to review scientist’s claim that data manipulated to discredit warming ‘pause’
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday that it would review a whistleblower’s allegations that the agency manipulated climate data in order to eliminate the global warming “pause” for political reasons.
The whistleblower, John Bates, who retired in December as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, rocked the climate change debate Sunday with his claim that a top NOAA climate scientist selectively used data to discredit the global warming hiatus in a key 2015 study.
“NOAA is charged with providing peer-reviewed data to the American public and stands behind its world-class scientists,” a NOAA spokesman said in an email. “NOAA takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”
Mr. Bates laid out his allegations in a lengthy article Saturday on the Climate Etc. blog, run by former Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry, and in a Sunday interview with the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail.
…
She [Dr Curry who had a detailed piece from Mr Bates on her website] cited the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has tangled with NOAA over document disclosure related to the “pausebuster” paper.
“The House science committee has an enduring interest in this topic and oversight responsibility,” Ms. Curry said. “NOAA should respond to the committee’s request for documentation including emails.”

The key here is that there will now be an internal enquiry by NOAA, and obviously we can be pretty sure that the new administration will ensure that that enquiry roots out all the dirt from the Obama era.
I suspect that also means the “(not) Pausebuster” paper will be withdrawn quite speedily – and I’d be very surprised if it were ever republished.
And note the irony here: if NOAA had complied with the original oversight committee subpoena, they could have fought this withdrawal – taken the rap and then speedily re-issued the paper leaving the Republicans a thorn in their site for when Trump came in. However by not taking the rap … the paper is now so easily attacked that it has to be withdrawn under a Republican President.
That would then suggest NOAA will have to return to pre- “(not)Pausebuster” temperature series with it pronounced pause. (SMILE!!)
With NASA rumoured to be ceasing with its climate work, and NOAA’s temperature having it’s wings clicked, Republicans will in one fell swoop have eliminated to two most outrageous “temperature” series.
Indeed, when I think about it the ocean buoy data that was falsely used by other organisations to fabricate their own “(not) pause-busting” metrics is under the control of NOAA. So it is all too likely that this will become “unavailable” (probably the PC will suffer a catastrophic failure as happened to Hilary’s email server and the PC on which the “(not) PauseBuster” work was done).

Whilst the allegations of data tampering at NOAA are themselves reason for a full scale fraud investigation, what many commentators are missing is that we now know the reason why NOAA refused to comply with the Subpoena from NOAA’s oversight committee. As Lamar Smith puts it:

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn.  Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.  The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.” (Committee Press Statement)

A Subpoena is a legally binding instrument, and it is a criminal offence to fail to comply. As such it was the President’s duty to enforce the law and either insure compliance or prosecute those who failed to obey by the law.
But NOAAgate was not just a few rogue “scientists” pushing their FakeScience. Nor was it the whole of NOAA pushing FakeScience. Instead it was a whole Democratic administration for whom this FakeScience was a religion – a religion that ignored the laws both of man and nature.
The origin of the criminal behaviour at NOAA are simple. The climate continually failed to show the demanded warming, despite the clear attempts by NOAA and NASA to mould  garbage data from ground (and tarmac) sensors to tease out a a warming. And after 17 years without warming, the FakeScientists finally cracked.
They gave up any pretence of real science and instead hit on a scheme to add in FakeWarming. They had noticed that the system of measuring ocean temperature had changed from one of of dipping buckets into the sea, to one using Ship intake temperature to one of using buoys (controlled by them). As such warming could easily be created by simply “recalibrating” one of these different methods. In their case they chose to “recalibrate” the far better buoy data to the ship engine intake water temperature.
The result was that a temperature change so small it was arguably just an instrumentation error, could be scaled up massively to completely change the global temperature trend and “get rid of the pause” … something which the Satellites clearly showed existed as global temperature had not changed significantly for nearly 19years.
And what, you may well ask, was the point in putting all those sophisticated satellites up in space to measure temperature – if you then go back to the garbage ground data that was the supposed reason for justifying putting the satellites up in space. The reason is simple: the satellites show the real temperature – and that real temperature does not show their predicted warming.
Undoubtedly as rumours of this unscientific politically motivated changes to global temperature reached Senator Lamar Smith, he stood out against all the FakeNews media and the FakeScientist and demanded that NOAA explain their behaviour.
If NOAA had acted lawfully, all this would have come out before the US election revealing the climate scam for what it is. But Obama was president, he conspired with NOAA’s illegal withholding of their documents. And that was criminal.

Add-Beginum: This #noaagate or perhaps #climategate2 is turning out to be bigger than I thought. Like #climategate it is starting with the blogs, and the establishment media is taking it’s time. But given the speed with which all climate blogs and some blogs I’ve never seen have taken this up, I cannot believe it won’t go big in the press.
I think I was the first to start using the term “the pause” and was certainly instrumental in popularising it on the blogs … so as my “baby”, I naturally felt a little aggrieved when the pause deniers tried to squash it to death with their fake data. So, when a whistle-blower came forth to say there was fake data – it didn’t sound like news to me!
Of course, the pause still undeniably exists in the only credible climate data from Satellites (the rest being heavily adjusted to get rid of the pause) – but that did not stop NOAA creating fake science to try to try to justify their politically motivated obliteration of the pause from their climate records.

The story broke (again) yesterday in the Mail with the Headline:

“Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data“

Quickly followed by the climate blogs:

• WUWT: BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures
• The Deplorable Climate Science Blog: First NOAA Whistleblower
• Climate Depot: NOAA Whistleblower: World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data 
• Climatism: BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures
• Climatism: Climategate 2: Heating Data Exaggerated By NOAA
• NoTricksZone: Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity Breaches”!
• Not A Lot of People Know That: Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
• Climate Etc. Climate scientists versus climate data
• Powerline:  Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
• Climate Common Sense: Major scandal at NOAA uncovered by whistleblower 
• Jo Nova: NOAA whistleblower tells how they used bad data to rub out “pause” for Paris

Official Response:

US Committee on Science, Space & Technology: Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Press:

• Inquisitor: Whistleblower: NOAA Doctored Global Warming Data To Influence Paris Agreement
• Daily Caller: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse
• InfoWars: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse
• Breitbart: Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
• World Tribue: Report: U.S. scientists manipulated data to make global warming seem worse 
• Blasting News:  NOAA scientists caught manipulating data to create climate change panic
• Herald Sun: Climategate 2: Heating data exaggerated by NOAA
• Mina: NOAA and NASA Continue to Fake Climate Data
• The Washington Times: Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’
• Herald Sun: Climategate 2: Heating data exaggerated by NOAA
• FoxNews: Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse
• The Australian: ‘Misleading data’ used to debunk warming hiatus: top scientist
• Tech Times:NOAA May Have Manipulated Climate Change Data Ahead Of Paris Conference
• International Business Times: Climate Change Hoax? NOAA Data Exaggerated Global Warming, Alleged Whistleblower Claims

Other Blogs/Forums (just a selection as far far too many to list)

• The Missouri Injury Blog:  World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data
• Catallaxy Files: Climate bombshell from NOAA whistle-blower. Expect more
• Libearl Forum: NOAA “Pausebuster” Paper- TOTAL BS Says Whistleblower
• Elite Trader: Whistleblower – NOAA published w/ misleading, flawed ‘unverified’ data
• IWB: NOAA Whistleblower Confirms Global Warming Is A Scam
• fisherynation.com: NOAA Says Its Hot As Ever? A NOAA Whistle Blower Turns The Heat Up On Them!!
• RangeMane: NOAA Whistleblower claims ERSSTv4 Oceanic Temp Data is Fraudulent
• evilyoshida: Exposed: NOAA Whistleblower Confirms Global Warming Is A Fraud !
• The K2p blog: The faking of climate data before the Paris conference
• Patriot News Agency: Hoax of the 21st century! World leaders duped into wasting billions by manipulated global warming data
• Waka Waka Waka: And That’s The Fake News, Folks. Now, Here’s The Fake Weather.
• PrairiePundit : More evidence that NOAA has been cooking the books to sell global warming
• iotwreport: World leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
• Aletho News: Climate scientists versus climate data
• Conservative Angle: Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
• Steemit: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
• BlabberBuzz: Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
• RevolutionRadio.org: Global warming world map based largely on “fake science” … NOAA caught in blatant temperature data fraud
• Legal Insurrection: Whistleblower: World leaders duped over manipulated global warming data
• Peak Oil: NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data
• TVN: Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
• Ricochet: NOAA Whistleblower Starts Firestorm on Climate Data
• ZeroHedge: ClimateGate 2 – NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data
• Natural News: Global warming world map based largely on “fake science” … NOAA caught in blatant temperature data fraud
• Freedom Phoenix: NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data
• Marshalltown: NOAA and NASA Continue to Fake Climate Data
• Fabius Maximus: An whistleblower challenges NOAA’s climate data
• The American Catholic: Global Warming Scam Continues to Unravel
• American Thinker: Government whistle blower accuses NOAA of manipulating climate data

Videos:

• NASA/ NOAA CLIMATE DATE Is FAKE DATA

And reaction from fake science blogs:

• Variable Variability: David Rose’s alternative reality in the Daily Mail
• Carbon Brief: Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise
• Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Much Ado about a NOAA Thing
• Guardian: Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists 
• LSE: More fake news in ‘The Mail on Sunday’
• Daily Kos: Retired NOAA scientist feels slighted, sets world afire in revenge
• Granite Grok: Settled Science Unsettled by NOAA Whistle-Blower
• International Business Times: ‘Climategate 2’ allegations are based on poor data, scientists say

Comment

I’ve always assumed the reason Senator Lamar Smith and the US committee on science pursued NOAA was because they had an internal whistle-blower who knew the evidence they used was fake science. But as we know, their subpoena whilst entirely proper and legal was not complied with by NOAA. Thus NOAA was acting in clear contravention to the law and the US constitution by not complying with a legal request from their oversight committee. The only problem was the committee need Obama to enforce the law – and for political reasons given the Democrat position, he would not.
So, following Trumps inauguration, I thought the new Trump appointed head of NOAA would force compliance and therefore Lamar Smith would come straight back, reopen the NOAA investigation bringing forth his star witness and the fake science data.
So, I was surprised last week to see that this week Lamar’s gunning for the EPA. Now however, we see … probably because there’s just so much corruption to root out … that the NOAA whistle-blower has come out publicly ahead of Lamar’s investigation.

Following the initial snowfall of fake news articles on Trump’s devastating effect on climate from the Once Mainstream Media, something strange has happened:
The number of Newspapers reporting on “Global Warming” has dropped, and now perhaps 1 in 4 “News” articles are just ignorant bloggers, rather than ignorant journalists (Google excludes all blogs and news outlets from Scientific Sceptics from its “News”).
This drop may simply be because the Press are holding their breath awaiting Trumps appointment of various heads (people who will finally get those calling themselves “scientists” to adhere to the standards of us Sceptics i.e. evidence based science).
Or, it may be that Trump’s curtailing those like NOAA and NASA releasing endless anti-industry propaganda dressed up as “science” has had the chilling effect.
Or … it might be that the snowflakes have so much else to fill their bilious columns with.

But I suspect it is the calm before the storm!

For some time, I’ve been aware that the way the media use “science” and what I was taught was meant by “science” are now two very different things. And it comes down to headlines like this:

Scientists Just Sharply Denounced Trump’s Travel Ban

The problem here, is that science (as I was taught it), is a method whereby we try to totally eliminate observer bias and that includes our political views. So you must choose, either you are a politician, or you are a scientist. That is not to say that a real scientist cannot have a political view, just as a juror cannot have a political view about a criminal trial in which they are a juror. But whilst you are acting as a scientist, just as when you are acting as a juror – you leave your politics outside the courtroom/lab.
But that seems to be increasingly untrue these days in “science”. And what is worse, these days, anyone from academia seems to be called a “scientist”. Maybe that’s because I’m reading more articles from the US where it seems to have a far more lax usage. But I’ve even heard “science” used for an archaeologist who I’ve little doubt would not have used the term themselves. Instead it was some cheap journalist using a catch all term for “academic” (not from the arts). It is now almost meaningless as a term. it doesn’t imply any actual standards or techniques or quality.
And so to the vast majority of the population and most journalists – “science” is a pretty meaningless term these days. When I try to define it, I end up with the same basic definition: it’s almost exclusively used for the group of government/University employees who’ve done a non-arts degree. And, whether or not they use the scientific method, whether or not they allow their own political views to colour their public statements, whether or not they’ve actually talking about a subject they know about or in some cases have been taught any science at all – whatever their actual knowledge or the quality of their work, they are all scientists to the press and public.

What then is a sceptic?

I’m more and more coming to the view, that a sceptic is what I used to call a “scientist”. Or what I’m increasing having to call a “Real scientist”. By that I mean someone who requires evidence before accepting an assertion. They require high standards of evidence using for example, the “scientific method” – trying to disprove an assertion, rather than moulding the data to fit. Someone who tries to remove their own personal, political and observational biases. Basically someone for whom “science” means a quality standard.
In simple terms, the difference between a sceptic and a “scientist” is this: a sceptic starts from a sceptical position and requires good impartial evidence to change their mind. In contrast, a “scientist” is now little more than a group identity for certain academics and researchers who’s only group attribute is they “measure things” and use maths.
In conclusion
Scepticism is a philosophy demanding a rigorous intellectual approach.
And to put it very crudely: Science is now a paypacket and/or a ticket into the media.
Terminology
As such I am seriously considering changing my terminology. What I value as high quality work is “scepticism” not science. And those who adhere to this philosophy may belong to the academic clan called “science”, but if they use the sceptic method, their highest accolade is to be hailed as a true sceptic not as another no-quality-control “scientist”.

For years we’ve seen a number of quite outrageous anti-science statements from a variety of judges who clearly didn’t know much about science nor the strong evidence contradicting the supposed theory of catastrophic warming and the clear evidence of deception by those like NASA with their fake temperatures.
However, now a Washington state judge has outraged the eco-terrorists and their snowflake supporters by saying:

“I don’t know what everybody’s beliefs are on [Manmade global warming], but I know that there’s tremendous controversy over the fact whether it even exists. And even if people believe that it does or it doesn’t, the extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.”