Judge Orders Obama to Stop Hiding Global Warming "Proof"

[Weatherman2020]

More from the most transparent administration in history.

On January 8, 2014, the White House posted a controversial video claiming that global warming causes more severe winter cold. Called “The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes,” it featured the director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), , claiming that a “growing body of evidence” showed that the “extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States” at the time was “a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.” [Editors Note:Holdren also believes Trees should be given standing to sue in courts]

This claim was questioned by many scientists and commentators. (See, e.g., Jason Samenow, Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument, Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2014 (linking to objection by five well-known climate scientists in the Feb. 14, 2014 issue of Science magazine); Patrick J. Michaels, Hot Air About Cold Air, Jan. 16, 2014 (former state climatologist of Virginia rejected Holdren’s claim))

In April 2014, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent a requestfor correction of this statement under the federal Information Quality Act, citing peer-reviewed scientific articles debunking it. In June 2014, OSTP rejected this request, claiming that Holdren’s statement was his “personal opinion,” not the agency’s position, and that it thus did not constitute “information” subject to the Information Quality Act, which excludes “subjective opinions” from its reach.

In response, CEI filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents related to the video, its production at taxpayer expense, and OSTP’s rejection of its correction request. Despite having earlier claimed that the video was just Holdren’s personal opinion, not the agency’s, OSTP withheld portions of emails about it as privileged “agency records.” It also refused to produce drafts of its letter rejecting CEI’s request for correction. It withheld two drafts even though they had been shared with an outside professor (and initially even concealed their very existence), and sharing a document with someone outside an agency usually waives any privilege to keep it secret.

Read it all.

Judge Orders White House To Stop Hiding Its Bogus Global Warming 'Proof'

 

[Billy_Bob]

Opp's... Caught lying again and now they must produce the evidence to support their claims.. EPIC FAIL...

And you notice the white house doesn't release this info until Friday so they hope it will disappear in the news cycle before Monday..

 

[Crick]

Contending that increased global temperatures will increase the occurrence of Rossby waves isn't the least bit controversial. Neither is it an attempt to "prove" AGW.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Contending that increased global temperatures will increase the occurrence of Rossby waves isn't the least bit controversial. Neither is it an attempt to "prove" AGW.

Funny:

Rosbey waves are driven by earths rotation, axial tilt, precision and ocean circulations. His opinions are not born out by the facts and neither are yours.. Touting them as if they were scientific fact and the official government position is not only deceptive, but a bald face lie to promote the AGW agenda. Holdren is an idiot!

 

[Crick]

Why don't we have Rossby waves all the time Mr Atmospheric Physicist? The warming of the poles faster than the warming at the equator is what's causing Rossby waves.

Again, this is not controversial. It might be wrong - all theories might - but it isn't CONTROVERSIAL. And neither is anyone suggesting that it is proof of AGW. Except whatever numbnut denier started this thread.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why don't we have Rossby waves all the time Mr Atmospheric Physicist? The warming of the poles faster than the warming at the equator is what's causing Rossby waves.

Again, this is not controversial. It might be wrong - all theories might - but it isn't CONTROVERSIAL. And neither is anyone suggesting that it is proof of AGW. Except whatever numbnut denier started this thread.

Tell me moron, How does the atmosphere of the earth change its position of warming? How does the ocean circulate? Why dont Rosby waves form in spring and fall?

You really don't know shit about our atmosphere do you..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Contending that increased global temperatures will increase the occurrence of Rossby waves isn't the least bit controversial. Neither is it an attempt to "prove" AGW.

So, no lab evidence, no proof.

 

[jc456]

Contending that increased global temperatures will increase the occurrence of Rossby waves isn't the least bit controversial. Neither is it an attempt to "prove" AGW.

Then why doesn't that pattern continue into summer?

 

[westwall]

Why don't we have Rossby waves all the time Mr Atmospheric Physicist? The warming of the poles faster than the warming at the equator is what's causing Rossby waves.

Again, this is not controversial. It might be wrong - all theories might - but it isn't CONTROVERSIAL. And neither is anyone suggesting that it is proof of AGW. Except whatever numbnut denier started this thread.

Tell me moron, How does the atmosphere of the earth change its position of warming? How does the ocean circulate? Why dont Rosby waves form in spring and fall?

You really don't know shit about our atmosphere do you..

I doubt that the most "open and transparent" admin will comply, and yes, crick doesn't know shit from shinola!

 

[Crick]

Why don't we have Rossby waves all the time Mr Atmospheric Physicist? The warming of the poles faster than the warming at the equator is what's causing Rossby waves.

Again, this is not controversial. It might be wrong - all theories might - but it isn't CONTROVERSIAL. And neither is anyone suggesting that it is proof of AGW. Except whatever numbnut denier started this thread.

Tell me moron, How does the atmosphere of the earth change its position of warming? How does the ocean circulate? Why dont Rosby waves form in spring and fall?

You really don't know shit about our atmosphere do you..

Change its position of warming? Why don't you try translating that into intelligible English.

I strongly suspect, from my knowledge of physics and about 3 weeks period covering meteorological oceanography as part of another class, I know as much or more about the atmosphere than do you. I do not think it need even be said that I believe your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics to be a complete lie. I think you have a mail order certificate in meteorology that might be equivalent to 30 hours work at a junior college. I think somewhere along the line you took a course in Atmospheric Physics 101 and decided to try stretching the truth a little bit.

Now, why don't you explain why the OP contends that the administration's comments about GW causing polar vortices to form is an attempt to prove AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jennifer Francis

Jennifer Francis

A real scientist, not an internet pretender like Silly Billy. And real information on the Rossby Waves.

 

[Sunni Man]

Obama said that Global Warming is settled science.

So who are we to doubt him?

After all, he is a Nobel Prize winner. ......

 

[Crick]

The world's climate scientists tell us the same thing. Several of them are Nobel prize winners as well.

 

[Sunni Man]

Plus, Obama is the smartest man in the world. ....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why don't we have Rossby waves all the time Mr Atmospheric Physicist? The warming of the poles faster than the warming at the equator is what's causing Rossby waves.

Again, this is not controversial. It might be wrong - all theories might - but it isn't CONTROVERSIAL. And neither is anyone suggesting that it is proof of AGW. Except whatever numbnut denier started this thread.

Tell me moron, How does the atmosphere of the earth change its position of warming? How does the ocean circulate? Why dont Rosby waves form in spring and fall?

You really don't know shit about our atmosphere do you..

Change its position of warming? Why don't you try translating that into intelligible English.

I strongly suspect, from my knowledge of physics and about 3 weeks period covering meteorological oceanography as part of another class, I know as much or more about the atmosphere than do you. I do not think it need even be said that I believe your claim to have a degree in atmospheric physics to be a complete lie. I think you have a mail order certificate in meteorology that might be equivalent to 30 hours work at a junior college. I think somewhere along the line you took a course in Atmospheric Physics 101 and decided to try stretching the truth a little bit.

Now, why don't you explain why the OP contends that the administration's comments about GW causing polar vortices to form is an attempt to prove AGW.

OMG.....



KEEP DIGGING BOYS...keep on digging...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Jennifer Francis

Jennifer Francis

A real scientist, not an internet pretender like Silly Billy. And real information on the Rossby Waves.

LOL...

An AGW bend on everything. Everything is caused by AGW...MAN CAUSED IT!!!

FUCKING MORON.. you used a paid left wing shill for proof...

 

[Crick]

Yeah, she's paid alright. As a research scientists by Rutgers. And, oh look! She has a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences. Are you two research fellows? Professional colleagues? Has she ever cited your many publications? BTW, where is your Wikipedia article?

Jennifer Ann Francis is a research professor at Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences since 1994.

Education
Francis received her PhD in atmospheric sciences from the University of Washington in 1994.

Career
From 1987 to 1988, she was a research assistant at the Ames Research Center. From 1988 to 1994, while attending the University of Washington, she was a research assistant at the department of Polar Science Center there.

Research
Francis's research focuses on climate change in the Arctic, and has published over 40 scientific papers on the topic.[1] It is also her opinion that warming in the Arctic may be changing the jet stream, which, in turn, may be leading to abnormal weather patterns such as an unusually long winter in the United Kingdom,[2][3] the 2013 Colorado floods,[4]and the unusually cold conditions across much of the southern United States in early 2014.[5][6] Specifically, Francis argues that the heating and cooling of Arctic seawater (the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the world) has slowed down the jet stream, resulting in weather conditions persisting for longer than they usually would.[7][8] That the warming in the Arctic is linked to extreme weather elsewhere in the world is a view supported by some of Francis's research, such as a study published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2012.[9][10]

References

1. Jump up^ Francis, Jennifer (5 March 2012). "Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic". Yale Environment 360. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
2. Jump up^ "Climate Change and Sandy". NOVA (TV series). PBS. 15 November 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
3. Jump up^ Mooney, Chris (25 April 2013). "WATCH: The Alarming Science Behind Climate Change’s Increasingly Wild Weather". Mother Jones. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
4. Jump up^ Dankosky, John (20 September 2013). "Why Climate Change Ups the Odds of Fires, Floods". NPR. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
5. Jump up^ Johnson, Terrell (6 January 2014). "Is The Record Cold Arctic Outbreak Tied To Global Warming?". Weather.com. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
6. Jump up^ Ghosh, Pallab (15 February 2014). "Wavier jet stream 'may drive weather shift'". BBC. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
7. Jump up^ Morin, Monte (13 September 2012). "Record loss of Arctic ice may trigger extreme weather". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
8. Jump up^ Francis, Jennifer (21 September 2012). "Shrinking Arctic ice and the wicked backlash on our weather". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 September 2013.
9. Jump up^ Francis, J. A.; Vavrus, S. J. (2012). "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes". Geophysical Research Letters 39 (6): n/a. doi:10.1029/2012GL051000.
10. Jump up^ Freedman, Andrew (12 September 2012). "‘Astonishing’ Ice Melt May Lead to More Extreme Winters". Climate Central. Retrieved 26 October 2013.

And, uh... SHILL... would that be like Willie Soon? How about Lord Monckton? Tim Ball? Roy Spencer? Eh?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah, she's paid alright. As a research scientists by Rutgers. And, oh look! She has a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences. Are you two research fellows? Professional colleagues? Has she ever cited your many publications? BTW, where is your Wikipedia article?

Jennifer Ann Francis is a research professor at Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences since 1994.

Education
Francis received her PhD in atmospheric sciences from the University of Washington in 1994.

Career
From 1987 to 1988, she was a research assistant at the Ames Research Center. From 1988 to 1994, while attending the University of Washington, she was a research assistant at the department of Polar Science Center there.

Research
Francis's research focuses on climate change in the Arctic, and has published over 40 scientific papers on the topic.[1] It is also her opinion that warming in the Arctic may be changing the jet stream, which, in turn, may be leading to abnormal weather patterns such as an unusually long winter in the United Kingdom,[2][3] the 2013 Colorado floods,[4]and the unusually cold conditions across much of the southern United States in early 2014.[5][6] Specifically, Francis argues that the heating and cooling of Arctic seawater (the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the world) has slowed down the jet stream, resulting in weather conditions persisting for longer than they usually would.[7][8] That the warming in the Arctic is linked to extreme weather elsewhere in the world is a view supported by some of Francis's research, such as a study published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2012.[9][10]

References

1. Jump up^ Francis, Jennifer (5 March 2012). "Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic". Yale Environment 360. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
2. Jump up^ "Climate Change and Sandy". NOVA (TV series). PBS. 15 November 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
3. Jump up^ Mooney, Chris (25 April 2013). "WATCH: The Alarming Science Behind Climate Change’s Increasingly Wild Weather". Mother Jones. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
4. Jump up^ Dankosky, John (20 September 2013). "Why Climate Change Ups the Odds of Fires, Floods". NPR. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
5. Jump up^ Johnson, Terrell (6 January 2014). "Is The Record Cold Arctic Outbreak Tied To Global Warming?". Weather.com. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
6. Jump up^ Ghosh, Pallab (15 February 2014). "Wavier jet stream 'may drive weather shift'". BBC. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
7. Jump up^ Morin, Monte (13 September 2012). "Record loss of Arctic ice may trigger extreme weather". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 10 September 2013.
8. Jump up^ Francis, Jennifer (21 September 2012). "Shrinking Arctic ice and the wicked backlash on our weather". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 September 2013.
9. Jump up^ Francis, J. A.; Vavrus, S. J. (2012). "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes". Geophysical Research Letters 39 (6): n/a. doi:10.1029/2012GL051000.
10. Jump up^ Freedman, Andrew (12 September 2012). "‘Astonishing’ Ice Melt May Lead to More Extreme Winters". Climate Central. Retrieved 26 October 2013.

And, uh... SHILL... would that be like Willie Soon? How about Lord Monckton? Tim Ball? Roy Spencer? Eh?

Wow... Talk about projection...

Soon was paid by HARVARD...

Francis was paid by the IPCC...

Francis is a dam paid for left wing Shill and is unapologetic about it being politically motivated.. Soon is doing work for Harvard and the Smithsonian Institute by their contracts with others and follows science to its logical conclusion...

You ignorant fools will believe anything your feed.. Hook, Line and sinker!

 

[Crick]

There is nothing wrong with being paid by the IPCC. There is something wrong with being paid by corporate interests for papers with specific content.

NY Times, 02/22/2015 "Ties to Corporate Cash for Climate Researcher Wei-Hock Soon"

...
But newly released documents show the extent to whch Dr. Soon's work has been tied to funding hge received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as "deliverables" that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

...

The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate," said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-autor of "Merchants of Doubt," a book about such campaigns. "Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater."

Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon's work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents shown that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed as required by modern standards of publishing.

 

[jc456]

There is nothing wrong with being paid by the IPCC. There is something wrong with being paid by corporate interests for papers with specific content.

NY Times, 02/22/2015 "Ties to Corporate Cash for Climate Researcher Wei-Hock Soon"

...
But newly released documents show the extent to whch Dr. Soon's work has been tied to funding hge received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as "deliverables" that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

...

The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate," said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-autor of "Merchants of Doubt," a book about such campaigns. "Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater."

Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon's work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents shown that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed as required by modern standards of publishing.

too funny. dude, it's amazing how you think only you can dictate the discussion. being paid is being paid. You can't prove an influence without evidence and so far you have none. All you show is that those paid by funding to support AGW get paid well. And that objectivity is no where to be found.