Intimidation Of Government Scientists By The White House

Barack Obama promised to remove politics from science, and has done the exact opposite. His Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said that she “hopes there are no climate deniers working for her” and Barack Obama is continuously abusive to anyone who doesn’t believe that his token CO2 gestures will save the planet.

The message being sent to government scientists is unmistakable, Toe the official line of the orthodoxy, or your job is at risk. Obama’s tactics are straight out of the 15th century.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Intimidation Of Government Scientists By The White House

  1. omanuel says:

    An exceedingly evil, intelligent force expanded from the central Eurasian continent to engulf the entire globe after WWII.

    That is why the integrity of science and constitutional limits on world governments evaporated, . . .

    Fragmenting the unity of the laws of nuclear physics, thermodynamics and cosmology, . . .

    With separate and irrational forms of consensus scientific explanations for increasing entropy, expansion of the universe, nuclear and atomic forces.

    Dividing the wisdom acquired from spiritual and scientific practices into dogmatic, warring opponents.

  2. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Well there is precedence as VP Al Gore had Dr. William Happer fired in 1993 for doubting his global warning scheme!

    • The only safe scientists are the ones with tenure, or the retired ones. Or…the ones willing to bald-face lie and agree with the hoax.

      • KTM says:

        Tenured scientists are not as “safe” as most people probably think. Even if they have 100% job security from tenure, they are constantly competing for research funding. If they get blackballed or shunned, their research funding can dry up. And many tenured scientists must pay a portion of their salaries out of the research grants they receive. A collaborator of mine has to pay 90% of his salary from grants. So if he makes $150,000 per year while grant money is coming in, he would only have a salary of $15,000 guaranteed by his department if the money dries up.

        If grants stop getting funded, research staff get laid off, lab space gets taken away, and salary takes a major hit, how “safe” is it to challenge the orthodoxy? There is a huge amount of herd mentality in all types of scientific research, driven by the very precarious career situation that most scientists are in.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Mentions Happer’s firing.

      ….“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said…

      Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993….

  3. Gail Combs says:

    I was just reading an old post at Judith Curry’s by Zeke Hausfather
    Understanding adjustments to temperature data
    Posted on July 7, 2014 | 2,044 Comments

    Zeke says about the adjustments

    Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done….

    How he can say that with a straight face in 2014 is a complete mystery. When the Climategate e-mails were brought up, the response was that was ‘only CRU’ and not the USA… So Mikey Mann is english??? (…pounds head on wall)

    Unfortunately with over two thousand comments my computer will barely load the page and takes eons to page down so I could only read a relatively few of the comments. Steve Mosher acted to squash any skeptic comments. He especially dumps all over any mention of this site.

    Bob Ludwick had the best comment of those I read.

    as Zeke went to great lengths to point out, the actual data stinks. Without going into motivations, the simple fact is that the actual data is being heavily massaged and used to produce headline after headline that states some variation of ‘Year X or Month Y is the hottest year/month of the last thousand years (or some other long period), beating the old record by a small fraction of a degree, and proving that we need to take action now to control ACO2 to avoid catastrophic climate change.’. And no amount of correcting, kriging, infilling, adjusting, estimating, or any other manipulation of sow’s ear data is going to turn it into silk purse data capable of detecting actual century or multi-century anomalies in the ‘temperature of the Earth’, whatever that is, with reliable hundredth or even tenth of a degree precision. The actual instrumentation system and the data collected by it is not ‘fixable’, no matter how important it is to have precision data, how hard the experts are trying to massage it, or how noble their intentions are in doing so. Using the previous analogy of the auditor, if the company to be audited kept its books on napkins, when they felt like it, and lost half of the napkins, no auditor is going to be able to balance the books to the penny. Nor dollar.

    We are told that anthropogenic climate change is the most important problem facing the human race at this time and for the foreseeable future. If so, why don’t the climate experts act like it?

    Want to convince me that it is important? Develop a precision weather station with modern instrumentation and deploy a bunch of them world wide.

    Forget the 19th century max/min, read them by hand thermometers and deploy precision modern instruments that collect data electronically, every minute if necessary, buffer it, and send it back to HQ at least daily for archiving. Make sure that they include local storage for at least a year or two backup, in case of comms failure. Storage is cheap, in the field and at HQ.

    Deploy the stations in locations where urban heat is not a factor and in a distribution pattern that guarantees optimum geographic coverage. It is no longer necessary to have humans visit the stations for anything other than routine maintenance or, for really remote sites where electronic data forwarding is not feasible (Where would that be nowadays?), periodic data collection.

    Set up a calibration program; follow it religiously. Ensure that the ACTUAL data collected is precise enough for its intended purpose and is handled in a manner that guarantees its integrity. If data is missing or corrupted, it is missing or corrupted. It cannot be ‘recreated’ through some process like the EDAC on a disk drive. It’s gone. If precise data can be generated through kriging, infilling, or whatever, why deploy the collection station in the first place?

    Collect data for a long enough period to be meaningful. Once collected, don’t adjust, correct, infill, krig, or estimate the data. It is either data or it isn’t.

    Oh, and give up the fiction that atmospheric CO2 is the only important factor in climate variability, the climate models that assume that it is, and the idea that we can ‘adjust the thermostat of the Earth’ by giving the government, any government, taxing and regulatory authority over every human activity with a ‘carbon signature’

    He is correct. Hansen screamed “THE EARH IS MELTINGGGggggg” back in 1988 to Congress. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed by the USA in 12/06/92 and ratified in 21/03/94.

    It has been 2 decades.

    So where the heck is the state of the art, class one, weather stations world wide, or at least country wide????
    Why have we instead wasted money on grants for studying the climate effect on slugs?

    Why are the greatest adjustments to the most recent data in the USA?

    Why is much of the US data flagged E meaning it is estimated not actual data? And why is it getting worse….

    And most important why does the tampering correlate to the increase in CO2 with an R = 0.8967, an almost perfect correlation?

    • KTM says:

      I’ve seen another commenter at WUWT ask Mosher to explain the temperature adjustments are just one location in Reykjavík, Iceland. Every time I see that, I think it’s an interesting challenge to put out there to those who insist that adjustments are justified. But I think it might be even more clever to hound them with this last chart that Tony put together showing CO2 and USHCN adjustments in a near perfect correlation.

      This chart makes it self-evident what’s going on. And they have already stated that the algorithm is working as intended, so what other explanation could they possibly offer?

      • Gail Combs says:

        I loved the way the ‘Adjusted temperature’ at the weather station within walking distance of my farm showed a minimum temperature of 33F while I had two inches of ice form on my stock tanks over night and ~4 inches of snow fall on my pastures. The weather station also reported the precipitation as ‘rain’

        After I called Dr Masters a liar on his blog and spread it all over the net, it hastily got changed but only shows 0.37 inches of snow and 31F hi 27, F avg, 24F low. The temperatures at least are a bit closer to actual.

        The temperatures at that weather station (rural airport) ALWAYS are 3 -5 F higher 24 hours later after the ‘adjustments’ are applied.

      • David A says:

        KTM, that would be me. (-; and yes, I have put that challenge to Mosher at least five times. Mosher actions define him as an non responsive elitist, incapable of engaging in any real discussion. Mosher will not respond to 90% of the comment directed his way. He will not respond to 100% of comments that link to this site.

    • Beale says:

      I think we have here a case of the phenomenon of the great and good friend. If I remember correctly, that’s how Al Haig (a trusted subordinate to Nixon and later to Reagan) described Joseph Califano (a Democratic fixer), There are other cases. It seems that Judith Curry and Anthony Watts have both found a great and good friend in Zeke Hausfather, not noticing that he’s the kind of friend who makes enemies unnecessary.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    GRRRrrr Fogot the backslash on the quotes. Sorry folks.

  5. gator69 says:

    I really do hate to pick nits, but the expression is “toe” the line. Typo maybe?

  6. Andy DC says:

    The alarmists are the true deniers. They deny that there has been an 18 year pause in warming. They deny that worldwide sea ice is normal. They deny that there has been no increase in extreme weather and a marked decrease in hurricanes and tornadoes. They deny that polar bears and penguins are thriving. They deny that heat and drought was far worse in the 1930’s. They deny their own satellite data. They deny that they manipulate data in an extremely warm biased fashion. They deny the scientific method. The list goes on and on.

  7. Justa Joe says:

    “Barack Obama promised to remove politics from science,”

    When the Donks were shouting about this during the heady days of the BHO campaign I knew exactly what they were saying. We were going to get Climate Change Crap and embryonic stem cell research crammed down our throats whether we liked it or not.

    What the leftists mean is that they’re not going to let your politics (any opposition to leftist policies no matter the basis for said opposition) to interfere with their science (all leftist policies are rooted in science by their characterization).

  8. Justa Joe says:

    There’s also another amusing development among young lefties. They’re now implying that all of their opinions are scientifically based because they disdain religion. Basically atheism is rooted in science no matter how stupid any particular atheist may be.

  9. @Gail Combs,
    “Unfortunately with over two thousand comments my computer will barely load the page and takes eons to page down so I could only read a relatively few of the comments.”

    Youy are suffering from Windoze… need Linux. I will be happy to install it for you. Just bring your laptop to that fine restaurant where we met a year ago.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I am using Linux but my computer is a mastodon (upgrade from the dinosaur that died.) It seems to be Opera that is hogging all the available memory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s