To the Editor Nytimes:

To the Editor:

I believe that federal employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have altered temperature data to try to refute an 18-year plateau in global temperatures that numerous other scientific studies have reported.

A Dec. 4 editorial, “The Latest Attack on Climate Science,” and a Dec. 8 Op-Ed essay by a climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, “The Assault on Climate Science,” unfairly described my efforts to get the American people the facts.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. But NOAA inexplicably omitted satellite data to reach the conclusions it wanted.

Federal employees whose salaries are paid for by American taxpayers have an obligation to be open and honest. Current law allows official communications to be made public, and that is why I have subpoenaed NOAA communications about its study. The American people have a right to know the real motivations behind this study, which are clearly suspect.

The climate is always changing, and human activity likely plays a small role. But what climate alarmists say is sometimes untrue and often exaggerated. We should rely on good science, not science fiction, when we evaluate climate change.

Alarmists like Mr. Mann seek to promote a political agenda, then claim to feel intimidated when anyone asks questions. But claiming that the debate is settled is the opposite of the scientific method.

If NOAA has nothing to hide, why not provide the evidence to support the agency’s claims?

LAMAR SMITH

Washington

The writer, a Texas Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

A self sustaining malign politico science nexus supporting itself and excluding all other voices – it is at odds with scientific enquiry across the centuries

In light of the fantastic performance by Ted Cruz more or less demolishing the whole stupid argument for global warming alarmism, I would be interested to know if any of the old crew that use to edit Wikipedia global warming articles would be interested in getting together.
If so, please leave comments below.
or contact me through the usual means.
 

It looks like being a terrible Xmas for big oil. Firstly Ted Cruz absolutely demolished the alarmists at his hearing leaving the forum nerds with no ammunition left to throw at us sceptics. So, bang goes any prospect of rising energy prices by some kind of cap and trade or carbon tax.
Secondly the destruction the world economy caused by the vile religion of carbon extremism is now causing the world economy to hiccup again dropping demand. And far from oil running out as they had promised it would to the carbon extremists, with fracking the world is awash with oil and consequently prices are tumbling.
The result is that the price of petrol may come down below £1 a gallon in Scotland.
But the bad news is here is Scotland many jobs rely on oil – so not only have we got an insane government in one of the colder countries of the world trying to destroy jobs and cool the planet to the detriment of us all. But they are also heavily reliant on oil (the word hypocrite and SNP is commonly used).
Source: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14133458.Petrol_prices__to_drop_to___1_before_Christmas_/
(but please do not visit them as they are one of the most sickening newspapers I know)

Reading the first reactions to the Ted Cruz inquiry, it seems that partially as a result of Trumps “interesting” statements on Muslims, and partly as a result of his stunning performance on climate, the Clinton camp are are aiming their attacks toward Ted Cruz.
But back to climate. The issue being picked up by “The Blaze” are:

• John Kerry#’s prediction of ice-free Antarctic by 2013
• The failure of the computer models during the “pause”
• 18 years without warming

The alarmist National Journal has a rather odd headline suggesting that Cruz played the “victim card” as a “climate heretic”.

“I be­lieve that pub­lic policy should fol­low the ac­tu­al sci­ence and the ac­tu­al data and evid­ence, and not polit­ic­al and par­tis­an claims that run con­trary to the sci­ence and data and ana­lys­is,” Cruz said
Ju­dith Curry, a Geor­gia In­sti­tute of Tech­no­logy pro­fess­or, said there’s been a “chilling ef­fect” on her own re­search and that she no longer ap­plies for gov­ern­ment grants be­cause she thinks they won’t get fun­ded.
Cruz denies that glob­al warm­ing is hap­pen­ing or that man has played a role and has made his “full-out deni­al” a key point in his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, [false – I understand Cruz’s view to be that there is no evidence the change we have seen was manmade and good evidence it is natural]
However, au­thor Mark Steyn and Curry chal­lenged Mar­key after his ques­tion time had ex­pired for not giv­ing them time to re­spond, launch­ing a spir­ited back-and-forth about what data sets and stud­ies were re­li­able for study­ing cli­mate change.
Des­pite the hear­ing com­ing as Cruz is rising in the GOP polls, he kept ex­pli­cit pres­id­en­tial cam­paign­ing out of the cham­ber and in­stead fo­cused on pro­mot­ing cli­mate skep­ti­cism. He even said that he took Demo­crats’ cri­ti­cism as a “back­han­ded com­pli­ment.”

Well done Ted Cruz. The Democrats were like telesales people with rehearsed scripts incapable of departing despite the overwhelming evidence against them.
And it all boils done to these simple facts as Ted Cruz put it:

1. CO2 is good for plant life
2. The Earth is greening
3. For significant periods of earth’s history there have been significantly more CO2 in atmosphere which did not come from burning fossil fuels.
4. For 18 years both balloon and satellite data show no warming
5. That satellite and balloon are the best evidence of whether the earth is currently warming
6. That seas were increasing more in 1st half of 20th century
7. That the computer models – that say we have to raise cost of living of all and make it harder to make ends meet – are profoundly wrong and inconsistent with the data and evidence.

The eco-nutter, anti-family, anti-industry SNP will have been jumping for joy at the way their negligence of the Forth Road bridge has stopped drivers using one of Scotland major motorways crossing the Forth Road bridge. The result has been massive traffic jams as traffic attempts to bypass the motorway bridge via detours up to 40miles away.
Some people are now leaving at 3am in the morning to avoid the massive queues that have formed.
The global warming obsessed SNP have today had to issue a statement that the bridge will be closed  till the New year. This is just global warming zealots like them want: to destroy Scotland’s economy and send us back to 10,000BC.

I saw a tweet from Gavi schmidt

Will Happer discusses how to hide funding for his testimony and writing. #contrariansforhire https://t.co/WNaygPcXLW

— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) December 8, 2015

And then discovering this scandal (reported by Greenpeace as sceptics getting fossil money) involved a sceptic working as a “labor of love” without pay.
The next bit of the scandal was when I read Climate Depot

Greenpeace co-founder reports it to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

Which looks like heating up into a nice scandal with Greenpeace investigation instigated by its own founder.
That seemed good enough, but then I read this tweet from Paul Thacker:

Wait. I thought it was wrong to disclose scientists’ emails….. https://t.co/V16fO4Uqti — Paul Thacker (@thackerpd) December 8, 2015

Now, Mr Schmidt has been very vocal in his condemnation of the proper investigation by the duly appointed oversight body asking for emails belonging to the public of a body under its jurisdiction claiming: “they are scientists – so their emails cannot be seen”.
But … look at his response as soon as sceptic emails are libellously and criminally obtained … he splashes the link over the internet with the greatest of glee.
Somehow I think NOAA are now a lot closer to releasing their emails!

I saw this tweet from the so called journalist (but really just a green activist) in the BBC:

@RHarrabin @Greenpeace @thegwpfcom @Revkin @DECCgovuk The #BBC were bought and sold to the vile industry hating alarmist scum years ago!

— Scottish Sceptic (@ScotClimate) December 8, 2015

I got as far as this on Greenpeace’s pathetic attempt to throw dirt:

In the exchange Clemente disclosed that for another report on “the Global Value of Coal” he was paid $50,000 by Peabody Energy – the sponsorship was mentioned in the small print of the paper,

Wow! Just wow!

Nothing illegal, nothing undeclared, nothing at all except an attempt to get a gullible journalists like Harrabin from the BBC to print greenpeace’s hatred and vile. And it went on:

Professor Happer, who is a physicist rather than a climatologist, told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour. He asked that the money be paid to climate sceptic campaign group, the CO2 Coalition, of which he is a board member.
Happer described his work on carbon dioxide as a “labor of love”

Which in case Greenpeace don’t understand, means he does it for no money. In other words, he doesn’t get money you fools! But … my gosh!! If someone is willing to pay he wants it to go to his favourite charity

wow! just wow!

And to think gullible Harrabin was taken in by that!
And the non-scandal goes on. Having declared it was a “labor of love”, Happer was bold enough to then declare:

“If I write the paper alone, I don’t think there would be any problem stating that ‘the author received no financial compensation for this essay.’”

Wow! just wow!

That is a huge scandal – doing something as a labor of love and then stating the author received no financial compensation.

When will this stream of scandal end?

LOL

The biggest question I have is who now looks more stupid. Greenpeace for their failure to find any substantial evidence whatsoever or that fool Harrabin for tweeting their rubbish.

Wow! Just wow!

Follow up: REAL SCANDAL DEVELOPING

In what appears to be a concerted effort by the BBC and Gavin Schmidt – both (I assume) owe a duty of impartiality as public servants or under the BBC charter, it now appears they may both be part of a (failed) conspiracy with Greenpeace to smear the witnesses at the congressional hearing tonight.
Because I found Schmidt tweeting this:

And now his tweet has disappeared!!

OK, now it’s going to be impossible to work out how closely the tweet from Schmidt and Greenpeace coincided, but there is a real smell of corruption in the air from both Harrabin and Schmidt. There is nothing in this vile article by Greenpeace and Gavin’s tweet revealed an academic making it clear he did not work for money (he got a few travel expenses with is quite normal for most organisations).
No doubt this link will soon disappear showing the email exchange:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2642410-Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust.html