tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post8241020385814621249..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: NOAA Should Submit Their Emails to Lamar SmithDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19684932706210873232015-11-22T15:20:25.976-08:002015-11-22T15:20:25.976-08:00It seems to me that Smith is pushing hard at this ...It seems to me that Smith is pushing hard at this because it seems like his preferred tactic prior to the COP21 Paris talks -it is the next best hope he has to manufacture another 'climategate'. For that reason alone, I hope NOAA at least delay producing the requested emails until well after then. <br /><br />But I really hope they never have to comply. As Victor wrote, Eddie Bernice Johnson's response to Smith makes it really quite clear why NOAA should stand up to the harassment.<br /><br />p.s. David Appell -surely you are getting as tired of going around in circles with 'David in Cal' as we are of witnessing it! Whenever I see there are several comments on a post, I now check to see who wrote the comments first -and ignore those tedious missives from this troll who has attached himself to your bridge. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15427410783634375334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-78585248965490009742015-11-21T15:20:42.240-08:002015-11-21T15:20:42.240-08:00David: They make a copy at your local library. Wri...David: They make a copy at your local library. Write to a co-author and ask them for a copy. Write to me and I'll send you a copy. But you have to read a paper before you can dismiss it. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-927370104735099232015-11-21T08:39:30.763-08:002015-11-21T08:39:30.763-08:00David
I assume you're talking about the paper...David<br /><br />I assume you're talking about the paper as published in Science Magazine. Sorry, I don't care to spend $20 for the privilege of being able to access that paper for one day.<br /><br />Cheers<br />David in CalDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-15127474443878543442015-11-20T23:15:00.123-08:002015-11-20T23:15:00.123-08:00David: I'd especially like to know why you thi...David: I'd especially like to know why you think the Karl et al study is "bad" when you just admitted you haven't read it.<br /><br />What kind of crap are you trying to pull here? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-45324275746919364002015-11-20T23:12:59.022-08:002015-11-20T23:12:59.022-08:00David in Cal wrote (not yet published):
"In t...David in Cal wrote (not yet published):<br />"In the long run, bad studies like the Karl paper will reduce public confidence in all the climate change warnings."<br /><br />Why is Karl et al a "bad" study?<br /><br />(This is another question you will have to answer until your comments are publishable again.) David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-90575976432273383952015-11-20T23:03:33.711-08:002015-11-20T23:03:33.711-08:00David in Cal: Did you read the papers yet?
I'...David in Cal: Did you read the papers yet?<br /><br />I'm not allowing any more of your comments through until you have read them. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-78311457977963281332015-11-20T22:46:44.450-08:002015-11-20T22:46:44.450-08:00Where I worked, there never was any assumption of ...Where I worked, there never was any assumption of privacy of my business emails. Obviously the IT Dept. had backed-up copies, so they could look at any emails I had written or received on my company computer. I never doubted that company executives could review my company emails if they chose to. In short, there was no expectation of privacy of my emails.<br /><br />If people had told company internal auditors that I had violated company procedures, then the internal auditors would have had the authority to review my company emails as part of an investigation on whether I really had violated company emails. That's pretty close to the sitation at NOAA. Whistle-blowers say that some employees violated procedure. Congress has oversight responsibility. It's appropriate that they look at all the facts to determine whether the accusations are correct or not. It's appropriate that Congress try to figure out how widespread the procedure viiolations were, if indeed there were any violations. <br /><br />As I explained earlier, in addition to checking for procedure violations, the NOAA emails might be useful to help determine whether NOAA used good faith in adopting the particular adjustments that they chose. <br /><br />Climate change is serious. Bad science and faulty procedures should not be tolerated, even if you like the results. In the long run, bad studies like the Karl paper will reduce public confidence in all the climate change warnings. The parable of the boy who cried wolf is what I am referring to. <br /><br />Cheers<br />David in CalDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-24500969589701198312015-11-20T21:36:04.693-08:002015-11-20T21:36:04.693-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"But, the question with N...David in Cal wrote:<br />"But, the question with NOAA is whether Congress has the right of oversight of work done by a government agency. Congress certainly has this right and this responsibility."<br /><br />And why does it need to impose on the privacy of worker's emails? What is missing from the extremely detailed papers published by the scientists?<br /><br />You are avoiding this question, David. Just like you ignore many others. <br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-69666728436133782152015-11-20T16:55:48.753-08:002015-11-20T16:55:48.753-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"You are correct that I d...David in Cal wrote:<br />"You are correct that I didn't read the actual papers."<br /><br />You should be ashamed of yourself.<br /><br />You will not be allowed to comment here again until you go read the papers, so you have at some low-level idea of what was said and done. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-16145222169375679112015-11-20T16:53:39.374-08:002015-11-20T16:53:39.374-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"More generally, there ar...David in Cal wrote:<br />"More generally, there are a great many plausible ways to adjust data. NOAA used a conceivable set of assumptions. If one could show that they chose their assumptions, not because they were the most plausible, but in order to disappear the warming pause, that would be important information."<br /><br />Their assumptions and methods are spelled out in their papers.<br /><br />But you didn't read their papers, so you prefer to go on an ignorant witch hunt. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-4266423422834727832015-11-20T16:51:51.263-08:002015-11-20T16:51:51.263-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"As I said, what's mi...David in Cal wrote:<br />"As I said, what's missing from the papers is the thinking behind the method. E.g. it's hard to justify using ship records rather than Argo records for ocean temperature."<br /><br />What in their papers did you find unclear?<br /><br />In fact, tell us -- did you even READ their papers? <br /><br />Be honest. <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-91398388482240494822015-11-20T16:50:22.726-08:002015-11-20T16:50:22.726-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"As I recall, you have c...David in Cal wrote: <br />"As I recall, you have criticized skeptics who cherry-pick dates for the trend. So, I would think you'd be particularly critical of Karl for doing just that, if indeed they did that."<br /><br />IF INDEED THEY DID???<br /><br />What a stupid comment. You have no idea if they did or not, no opinion on the subject, and no reason whatsoever to expect anything they did was nefarious.<br /><br />So you try to cover yourself with a dipshit phrase like "if indeed they did that." <br /><br /> David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-26491858270198526682015-11-20T16:47:44.520-08:002015-11-20T16:47:44.520-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"Any business is at risk ...David in Cal wrote:<br />"Any business is at risk of having internal communications made public."<br /><br />A science institution isn't a business. They don't exist to make a profit, they exist to find the truth. <br /><br />Why would you want to hamper scientists by denying them the ability to share preliminary results with collegues so they can see if they are on the right track and thinking straight? That makes absolutely no sense to me.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-15645463224373212042015-11-20T16:42:57.022-08:002015-11-20T16:42:57.022-08:00David -- Any business is at risk of having interna...David -- Any business is at risk of having internal communications made public. In case of a lawsuit, any information at all could be discoverable. We were taught to follow the "New York Times rule" -- Don't write something that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the New York Times.<br /><br />I mentioned several of the flaws in an earlier comment, an I linked to an article that mentions other possible flaws. As I recall, you have criticized skeptics who cherry-pick dates for the trend. So, I would think you'd be particularly critical of Karl for doing just that, if indeed they did that. <br /><br />As I said, what's missing from the papers is the thinking behind the method. E.g. it's hard to justify using ship records rather than Argo records for ocean temperature. That switch can be disputed for technical reasons. But, if one could find that NOAA made this switch with the written goal of getting a higher trend, that would be more damning than just a quibble over which method is technically superior. <br /><br />More generally, there are a great many plausible ways to adjust data. NOAA used a conceivable set of assumptions. If one could show that they chose their assumptions, not because they were the most plausible, but in order to disappear the warming pause, that would be important information.<br /><br />You are correct that I didn't read the actual papers. I read commentary at Prof Curry's blog, to which I linked. If that blog mis-described the techniques used in the papers, then my criticism would be invalid.<br /><br />Cheers<br />David in CalDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-10629570495201860862015-11-20T15:50:09.246-08:002015-11-20T15:50:09.246-08:00David: Why do you think Lamar Smith won't rele...David: Why do you think Lamar Smith won't release his emails, or those of his staff?<br /><br />Doesn't Congress work for the people? Aren't you his "boss?" David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-52801631258539464152015-11-20T15:48:14.633-08:002015-11-20T15:48:14.633-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"3. Did NOAA employees re...David in Cal wrote:<br />"3. Did NOAA employees reject other possible adjustments, because those adjustments would have produced a lower trend?"<br /><br />NOAA clearly spelled out their reasoning, methodology and analysis in their papers.<br /><br />Is there something in their papers you find troubling?<br /><br />Frankly, I don't get the impression you even READ their papers.<br /><br />You're just as much on a fishing expedition as Lamar Smith, alleging this and alleging that with no evidence whatsoever. <br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-79682262438433118682015-11-20T15:45:29.636-08:002015-11-20T15:45:29.636-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"I was taught in my worki...David in Cal wrote:<br />"I was taught in my working days that anything I wrote might be made public in the future."<br /><br />In my days working for corporations, no one ever said such a thing. I guess I worked for companies that respected worker's privacy, and you did not.<br /><br />"Surely all government employees are made aware of this basic principle."<br /><br />You know this for a fact?<br /><br />Why does ANYONE need access to emails, when all the details are spelled out in the paper's? Is there something missing from the papers?<br /><br />Do you think training employees that their emails may be trolled through at any time might affect their willingless to communicate with their colleagues, thus impacting their progress? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-60584074460346688602015-11-20T15:41:47.733-08:002015-11-20T15:41:47.733-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"IMHO another bit of evid...David in Cal wrote:<br />"IMHO another bit of evidence is that the studey was released and publicized despite some obvious, big flaws."<br /><br />What "obvious, big flaws?" Specifically? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-20129328378990272382015-11-20T15:41:23.649-08:002015-11-20T15:41:23.649-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"There is evidence, namel...David in Cal wrote:<br />"There is evidence, namely what the whistle-blowers said."<br /><br />What evidence? <br /><br />How do you know what the purported whistleblower(s) said? <br /><br />Lamar Smith has been requesting emails for a long time. Why, when that was before any whistleblowers? <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19222026518554423022015-11-20T15:38:17.128-08:002015-11-20T15:38:17.128-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"The purpose of the subpo...David in Cal wrote:<br />"The purpose of the subpoena would be to find out whether the whistleblosers' allegation is true or false."<br /><br />Except Lamar Smith has been requesting these emails since long before any claimed "whistleblowers" came forth. <br /><br />Why, if it's not a fishing expedition? <br /><br />"If NOAA has nothing to hide, this shouldn't be a problem."<br /><br />If you have nothing to hide, are you OK with the police coming in and doing a thorough search of your home? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-89930032990521293632015-11-20T15:35:22.618-08:002015-11-20T15:35:22.618-08:00There is evidence, namely what the whistle-blowers...There is evidence, namely what the whistle-blowers said. IMHO another bit of evidence is that the studey was released and publicized despite some obvious, big flaws.<br /><br />Cheers<br />David in CalDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-17249339291052201052015-11-20T15:28:30.215-08:002015-11-20T15:28:30.215-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"If there are reviews tha...David in Cal wrote:<br />"If there are reviews that properly must be done before a study is made public, and if the Karl paper was made public without all these proper reviews being done...."<br /><br />If if it. Clearly you have no idea or information about any of these ifs. In other words, you support a fishing expedition based on no evidence whatsover.<br /><br />"No evidence" is getting to be a common theme with you. <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-27188021742770624042015-11-20T15:16:42.454-08:002015-11-20T15:16:42.454-08:00If there are reviews that properly must be done be...If there are reviews that <b>properly</b> must be done before a study is made public, and if the Karl paper was made public without all these proper reviews being done, then releasing the paper would have been improper conduct by NOAA. I don't know whether or not some mantatory reviews were omitted. Apparently the anonyomus whistleblower(s) said this was the case. I am not sure how to evaluate the whistleblowers, since they're anonymous and I don't have a copy of their actual statememts. <br /><br />The purpose of the subpoena would be to find out whether the whistleblosers' allegation is true or false. If NOAA has nothing to hide, this shouldn't be a problem. I was taught in my working days that anything I wrote might be made public in the future. Surely all government employees are made aware of this basic principle.<br /><br />Cheers<br />David in CalDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-42551027770740325962015-11-20T14:22:40.103-08:002015-11-20T14:22:40.103-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"Did any NOAA employees i...David in Cal wrote:<br />"Did any NOAA employees intentionally release the study without doing the proper reviews, as has been alleged by some whistleblowers?"<br /><br />Scientist share studies before publication ALL THE TIME -- with friends and colleagues to make sure they're on the right track.<br /><br />What's wrong with that? <br /><br />Complaining about this is yet another way to kill scienctic progress, brought to you by people who don't know any science. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-77313473072190391992015-11-20T14:16:40.453-08:002015-11-20T14:16:40.453-08:00David -- I think I already already answered your q...David -- I think I already already answered your questions. Among the valid questions not answerable from public information are<br /><br />1. Did any NOAA employees intentionally release the study without doing the proper reviews, as has been alleged by some whistleblowers?<br /><br />2. What was NOAA's motivation in choosing their method? E.g, were they motivated by an effort to show a higher warming trend?<br /><br />3. Did NOAA employees reject other possible adjustments, because those adjustments would have produced a lower trend?<br /><br />4. Was the release timed to have an impact on the coming meeting in Paris?<br /><br />5. Did any NOAA employees point out flaws in the study before it was released? That is, were possible flaws ignored? (To me, this seems likely. E.g., surely someone at NOAA would have objected to cherry-picking the year for starting a trend. It seems likely that someone might have questioned substituting ship readings for ARGO readings.)<br /><br />6. Was the wording of the NOAA press release an intentional overstatement? Even if the NOAA study was without scientific flaws, NOAA ought not to have said there was no hiatus, since many other methods still showed one.<br /><br />Cheers<br />Davin in CalDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.com