Lamar Smith’s Show Trial for Climate Models

It’s that time of the month again, and the needle on Alice F.’s wetware alternative facts detector blasted through the end stops again yesterday. As a result I felt compelled to inform assorted planetary politicians that Alice had detected that trouble was brewing:

Alice’s little grey cells started twitching with the following announcement from ex Prof. Judith Curry:

Her suspicions were confirmed when a quick search of the usual suspects revealed this announcement by the Global Warming Policy Foundation:

From the associated “press release”:

A report on the State of the Climate in 2016 which is based exclusively on observations rather than climate models is published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

Another one of the usual suspects, Anthony Watts, blogged about the GWPF report this afternoon:

Compiled by Dr Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (Norway), the new climate survey is in sharp contrast to the habitual alarmism of other reports that are mainly based on computer modelling and climate predictions.

Prof Humlum said: “There is little doubt that we are living in a warm period. However, there is also little doubt that current climate change is not abnormal and not outside the range of natural variations that might be expected.

As this slideshow of learned (and not so learned!) comments on Twitter reveals, the WUWT and GWPF’s claims leave an awful lot to be desired:

 

In particular Dr Ole Humlum’s “white paper” is not “based exclusively on observations rather than climate models” nor is it “The World’s first” such “State of the Climate Survey”. As Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville pointed out on Watts Up With That:

Ummm… I believe the Bulletin of the AMS (BAMS) annual State of the Climate report is also observation-based…been around many years.

Victor Venema of the University of Bonn pointed out on Twitter that:

and Mark McCarthy of the UK Met Office added that:

All in all there’s several “alternative facts” in just the headline and opening paragraph of the GWPF’s press release, which doesn’t augur well for the contents of the report itself. We feel sure that Lamar Smith and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology will nonetheless be pleased to see this report become public shortly before their planned hearing on March 29th entitled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method“:

We also feel sure they were pleased to view the contents of another recent “white paper” published under the GWPF banner. The author was ex Professor Judith Curry, and the title was “Climate Models for the Layman“. Lamar Smith et al. certainly seem to qualify as laymen, and Judith’s conclusion that:

There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is at the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC.

will no doubt be grist to their climate science bashing mill next Wednesday. Unfortunately that conclusion is yet another “alternative fact” according to the non laymen.

This report, however, does little to help public understanding; well, unless the goal is to confuse public understanding of climate models so as to undermine our ability to make informed decisions. If this is the goal, this report might be quite effective.

Donald Trump’s War on Climate Science Continues

Not content with trying to muzzle the climate science sections of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA for short), the Trump administration in the United States is now going after the perhaps more familiar National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA for short) too. On February 16th the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology issued a statement from their Chairman, Lamar Smith. The phrase “climate change” wasn’t mentioned, but here’s an extract:

We stand at a crossroads. Sir Isaac Newton said, “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

Today, as we consider the next steps of the space program, we are all like that boy – or girl.

Presidential transitions offer the opportunities to reinvigorate national goals. They bring fresh perspectives and new ideas that energize our efforts.

Now is the time to reaffirm our support for the bold visions and commitments that will shape America’s future in space.

The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 is the culmination of many years’ discussions and hopefully will soon pass the Senate and House. This legislation has two goals. First, it reiterates the importance of maintaining NASA’s continuity of purpose.

Second, the bill allows the president to introduce a Fiscal Year 2018 budget request that reflects his priorities.

With a fresh perspective, the White House will be able to work with the new Congress to implement the goals and initiatives necessary to continue our leadership in space.

Do you get the idea yet? On February 17th Scientific American reported that:

Lawmakers are remaking NASA in order to leave parts of the agency’s earth science program untouched but remove its climate change research.

It’s still unclear exactly how lawmakers plan to transform NASA’s mission, but Republicans and Trump administration officials have said they want the agency to focus on deep-space missions and away from climate change research, which is a part of its Earth Sciences Division. That has created uncertainty about the fate of the Earth Sciences Division, which accounts for about $2 billion of NASA’s $20 billion budget.

At a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing yesterday, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said he wants a “rebalancing” of NASA’s mission.

Specifically, that could mean NASA’s work on climate change would go to another agency, with or without funding, or possibly would get cut. Smith and other Republicans avoided laying out specifics but acknowledged that earth science at NASA would likely face some significant changes in the near future.

Also on February 17th the web site well known Donald Trump supporter Senator Ted Cruz published a news release which proclaimed:

Today, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed S. 442, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Transition Authorization Act of 2017, which was introduced by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and John Cornyn (R-Texas). The legislation provides stability for NASA to sustain and build upon existing national space investments designed to advance space exploration and science with an overall authorization level of $19.508 billion for fiscal year 2017.

America has a long history of leading the way in space exploration, which has also fostered extraordinary economic growth and job creation of the State of Texas and the entire nation,” said Sen. Cruz, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. “This bipartisan legislative achievement provides NASA and the future of the U.S. space program with the stability and certainty it needs moving forward with a new administration. I look forward to working with colleagues in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our nation’s new era of pioneers can continue to innovate and explore with clarity and purpose.”

This bill directs NASA to send humans to Mars, expand commercial space activity and ensures that work will continue on the next generation of rockets, engines and capsules that are currently being constructed in Florida and across the country,” said Sen. Nelson, ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Here is all 146 pages of The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017.

The term “Earth science” and the word “climate” are mentioned a grand total of zero times in the bill.

Climate Change Deniers Crafted the Original Alternative Facts

Our title for today is (mostly) shamelessly plagiarised from an article by Eric Pooley in Time magazine:

Climate Change Denial Is the Original Fake News

According to Mr. Pooley:

The great struggle of our era will be fact versus deliberate fiction. Americans have watched this battle unfold in the 2016 presidential election and the early days of the Donald Trump Administration, as a leader who plays fast and loose with the facts begins to erode the very idea of evidence-based public debate.

For those fighting to solve climate change, this is an old story. Professional climate-change denial is the original fake news.

I’m not talking about your grumpy uncle’s doubts about whether climate change is real. I’m talking about the fossil fuel-funded, decades-long, under-the-radar public-relations campaign that helped sow those doubts.

We couldn’t agree more, and this site has grown out of our previous documentary evidence of such “under-the-radar public-relations campaigns” in the Arctic sea ice subset of the climate change “debate”. Eric continues:

The goal of the professional deniers is to spread doubt about facts that have been established through decades of research. Knowing that most people reasonably enough don’t have the time or training to investigate scientific claims, they toss out random theories and see what gains traction. Water vapor, suns spots and the Medieval Warm Period have all had a turn.
We recently saw a fresh round of climate propaganda. A columnist in the London tabloid Mail on Sunday falsely accused scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of fudging temperature data. The writer used the familiar tactic of taking an obscure scientific point (there are small differences in the globally averaged temperature results published by various scientific institutions) and pretending that it discredits climate science itself. This is like calling your diet an abject failure because one scale says you lost 39 pounds and another says you lost 40. The claims have been authoritatively debunked. The so-called “whistleblower” featured in the fake news story has even come forward to say there was no fraud.

Yet inside the echo chamber of climate lies, the bogus claim spread farther and faster that those rebuttals ever will. Breitbart-style outlets hailed the “news” and conservative bloggers, tweeters and politicians amplified it. Representative Lamar Smith, the climate change–denying chair of the U.S. House Science Committee, whose campaigns are largely bankrolled by oil money, issued a breathless press release and raised the issue at a recent hearing. And Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s pick to head the EPA, has been using the same kind of climate disinformation in his oral and written Senate confirmation testimony.

Please read the Time article in it’s entirety, but for our “Great White Con” sister site’s in depth exposé of “what gains traction” in “the climate change–denying chair of the U.S. House Science Committee’s” latest such campaign please also see:

Climategate 2 Falls at the First Hurdle?

plus

David Rose’s Climatic Alternative Facts and Deceptions

et seq.

You can watch the denialosphere spinning this “inconvenient truth” even as we speak:

Lamar Smith is currently conducting an Orwellian “show trial” of NOAA.

Watch this space!

Beta Testing Snow White’s Alternative Fact Detector

A “guest article” by #AFW™ team member Snow Y. White, reproduced from her blog and originally published on February 7th 2017:

As part of our ongoing alternative facts research program we flipped the switch on the first beta test version of Snow White’s Alternative Facts Wetware™ (#AFW™ for short) AF detection subsystem early on Saturday morning (UTC). We were astonished when the needle literally flew past the end stops later that morning. Initially we suspected a bug must have sneaked in via one of Snow’s unprotected ear canals. However when she rather reluctantly ran her exhaustive diagnostic routines they revealed that her mission was in actual fact absolutely nominal.

What happened next therefore came as no surprise whatsoever:

 

For those of you unfamiliar with some of Planet Earth’s leading alternate facts exponents perhaps we should explain at this juncture that we tweeted Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (amongst numerous other local, national and international politicians) long before ex Prof. Judith Curry “blew the whistle” with the aid of John J Bates and then Congressman Lamar Smith proudly published the House Science Committee’s “#NOAAGate press release”.

2017-02-06_0100-NOAAGate-FAQ

Here’s a close up of the graphic graphic we sent the pols, which emerged from our prior “debate” with Nigel, who changed the subject without addressing the issue and then turned strangely silent:

SMOS-20170201

We cannot help but wonder what comment Messrs Smith and Rohrabacher might wish to make at this juncture. What do you make of all this Nigel?