300 climate scientists demand NOAA explain its global warming climate data

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

No settled science here: Three hundred climate scientists have signed a letter demanding that NOAA stop stonewalling the Congressioinal investigation of the agency’s repeated adjustments to raw climate data so that the record shows increased warming, when there is none.

Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

Seems to me that this letter and the number of climate scientists willing to sign it alone demonstrates that the “97 percent consensus” on global warming is bogus. As for NOAA, the agency is legally in violation of the law by refusing to provide information requested by Congress. Moreover, what are they afraid of? If they haven’t been tampering with the data improperly, they should have no reason to resist the congressional investigation. That they are stonewalling it suggests that they are hiding something. It also suggests that they haven’t the faintest idea what the scientific method is, which requires total transparency so that others can check the results and make sure they are correct.


  • Cotour

    Re-posting this in a more appropriate story line:

    Rolf Witzsche, lays out his interpretation of the science of the coming global cooling / ice age, if you can, make time to watch this video.


    He goes into what appears to be well reasoned observations about the sun and its diminishing sun spot activity and solar output and their implications, he also takes apart the “global warming ” political agenda and strongly suggest that within the next 30 years our earth will very quickly turn to the next ice age cycle. Has modern human civilization just happened to emerge in this 12 thousand year inter-glacial period and now the next 100 thousand year glacial period to begin? Maybe a bit unconventional (especially the narration) but thought provoking.

  • Michael

    “Moreover, what are they afraid of?”

    …..the greenies…..

  • Tom Billings

    “Has modern human civilization just happened to emerge in this 12 thousand year inter-glacial period and now the next 100 thousand year glacial period to begin? Maybe a bit unconventional (especially the narration) but thought provoking.”

    Not at all unconventional ideas. In the late 1960s, when my HS classmates were all agog at the idea of a New Glacial period, I was already telling them of the cure. Grab Aluminum from asteroids or the Moon, and ship it into Geostationary Orbit, where it is made into mirrors that are turned to reflect the Sun’s light onto the surface during daylight. Then turn the mirrors so this does not happen at night. This was dismissed in the middle of science class by classmates, “because NASA can’t do it right now”. So many believed that only NASA could fly in Space, and that no one could do it cheaper, that discussion of my science paper was, …brief.

  • Cotour

    By “unconventional” I mean his refuting most all of the “global warmists” arguments regarding what is more likely to actually be going on on our planet and how the sun / stars operates and their electric characteristics and the universe in general and his unique presentation style. He’s like listening to a combination of Einstein and Dr. Ruth. Lots of data accompanied with lots of reasonable explanation.

    I would be interested in What Mr. Zimmerman thinks since his observations and conclusions are based in sun spot and solar activity. Does the sun go into a 70% reduced output mode which drives the ice ages as it cycles through its nuclear fuel?

  • pzatchok

    In the end they will have to throw out all the altered data.

    Then they will have to go through all the data and find the source points that are trustworthy.
    I don’t know if they will get rid of the bad data or just place a question mark on it.

    Bad data points being sensors that have been tampered with by man or nature.

    Then someone has to go back and repair all the sensors.

    Or they will just have to toss out everything from NOAA and close it.
    If congress makes that threat and sticks to it they will cleanup their act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *