¶3 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

This is the third installment (paragraph 3) of this citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal media sensation the John Bates Affair.  For some background and introduction link here.  I’ve borrowed Bates’ subtitle since I’m exploring his wordsmithing in order to ponder his motivations and it seemed to fit well enough.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc - J. Curry

“A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”

source: arstechnica.com
(Can you see the difference?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bates writes in ¶3:   In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. 

___________________________

This sounds like Mr. Bates the prosecuting attorney setting up a jury to convict.  Critical information like what?  

Technical infractions of documenting protocols?  Procedures that take years to satisfy and were the source of many contentious meetings between departments and Bates trying to iron out his fastidious (perhaps even obstructionist) red tape with real world needs.  Bates does not share that side of this story.

What’s galling with that sentence is that having read through all this a number of times I already know Bates provides nothing of the sort.  Not a hint of any slight or infraction against Chairman Smith by Dr. Karl.  The NOAA claim perhaps woven between the lines.  The Science Magazine claim amounts to nothing more than another creative and hostile insinuation.  I can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t Judith’s ghostwriting.

Bates ¶14   ... Did Karl et al. disclose to Science Magazine that they would not be following the NOAA archive policy, would not archive the data, and would only provide access to a non-machine readable version only on an FTP server?

Has Dr. Bates stopped beating his wife?  That sort of framing is gratuitous and only good for contriving prejudices.

¶2 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

This is the second installment (paragraph 2) of this citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal.  For some background link here.  I’ve borrowed Bates’ subtitle since I’m exploring his wordsmithing in order to ponder his motivations.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc - J. Curry

“A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”

For perspective, all this hubbub is over the difference between these two lines

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bates writes in ¶2:   ‘The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015’ 

__________________________

If this is Bates’ “most serious example” - what’s the big deal?  If it was a big deal, why wasn’t Dr. Bates duty bound to formally raise concerns while in his position of responsibility at NOAA?

“Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.” (W. Cornwall, P. Voosen) 

Instead Bates retired and only then does he drag his personal dirty laundry over to Judith Curry for her make-over skills.  Then he releases his complaint to a public that has no technical understanding of the issues.

That’s not how serious scientists or competent administrators operate.  Smells more like vendetta ensnarled by political dirty tricks.

This begs the question, why doesn’t Bates take his own advice?

(Bates) cautioned scientists against advocating policy.

"You really have to provide the most objective view and let the policymakers decide from their role," Bates said. "I'm getting much more wary of scientists growing into too much advocacy. I think there is certainly a role there, and yet people have to really examine themselves for their own bias and be careful about that."(W. Cornwall, P. Voosen)

¶1 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

This is a citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal.  For more background you can start here.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc.- Curry's blog

“A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”

__________________________

I’ve borrowed John’s subtitle since I intend to explore his wordsmithing and ponder his motivations.

Bates' beloved Protocol

_________________________________________________

Bates writes in ¶1   “I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016)." 

__________________________

Red flag right out of the gate.

It’s telling that Bates makes light of what the Trump Administration had already done to climate science information.  Given such an intro we must consider the possibility John Bates’ is motivated by politics and opportunism rather than any concern over data records.

With Trump in Charge, Climate Change References Purged From Website

By Coral Davenport | Jan. 20, 2017 | New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-white-house-website.html

WASHINGTON — Within moments of the inauguration of President Trump, the official White House website on Friday deleted nearly all mentions of climate change. The one exception: Mr. Trump’s vow to eliminate the Obama administration’s climate change policies, which previously had a prominent and detailed web page on whitehouse.gov.

The purge was not unexpected. It came as part of the full digital turnover of whitehouse.gov, including taking down and archiving all the Obama administration’s personal and policy pages.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website

Jason Koebler | Jan 20, 2017

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website-5886b75d0b367c453f87dd14

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Elevator pitch to co-authors of Fyfe et al. 2016 - need for clarification

Dear Fyfe 2016 Co-Authors,

All of you by virtue of being experts of the highest caliber possess a nuanced understanding light-years beyond ordinary citizens, politicians and business leaders.  Belonging within that rarified world you risk being out of touch with how non-scientists, particularly those with hostile agendas, read your papers.  To us nonscientists Fyfe et al. 2016 offered up a muddled Rorschach test rather than the promised clarifications.

Please give this summary of my previous effort a moment to see if something resonates, or not.  I don’t need a response, all I'm hoping is for you to take it seriously, if only for a moment.

____________________________________________________________________________

¶10  Understanding of the recent slowdown also built upon prior research into the causes of the so-called big hiatus from the 1950s to the 1970s. During this period, increased cooling from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols roughly offset the warming from increasing GHGs (which were markedly lower than today).  This offsetting contributed to an approximately constant global mean surface temperature (GMST). Ice-core sulfate data from Greenland support this interpretation of GMST behaviour in the 1950s to 1970s, and provide compelling evidence of large temporal increases in atmospheric loadings of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. The IPO was another contributory factor to the big hiatus¹³. 

________________________________

Clarify the process so people can 'appreciate' what you're talking about.

Sulfate aerosols reflected the sun’s energy back into space 

before it had the opportunity to be converted into the infrared energy 
that fuels our climate system.  

Thus a cooling trend in the GMST and the global system.

____________________________________________________________________________

¶11  Research motivated by the warming slowdown has also led to a fuller understanding of ocean heat uptake. … In summary, research into the causes of the slowdown has been enabled by a large body of prior research, and represents an important and continuing scientific effort to quantify the climate signals associated with internal decadal variability, natural external forcing and anthropogenic factors.

________________________________

Clarify the process …

The heat was moved into the oceans where ~90% of our climate system’s heat resides, thus it was absorbed into the global climate system - even if not registering in the GMST estimate.

Help people viscerally visualize the dynamics.            

____________________________________________________________________________

Claims and Counterclaims 

Poptech's "Truth" re WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot - Examined

In my decades long experience dialoging with climate science “skeptics" they consistently respond to reasoned critique of their arguments by sidetracking the discussion with personal attacks intent on making their 'opponents' seem as detestable as possible thus making any facts irrelevant, as Zoe so ably demonstrated in the last post.  

Respect, fairplay, honesty, honor, constructive learning means nothing.  Decapitate one’s ‘opponents’ before they can drive home any arguments or evidence regarding Manmade Global Warming. 

Poptech at “populartechnology-net” provided a text book example last year and since he seems to be slinking around the internet peddling his fable again, I figure I’ll get personal myself and share the response which separates Poptech’s fabrications from the facts.

Besides, it fits right in with the pathetic John Bates’ Affair - John’s MO is the same, malicious manipulation and omission of facts, spin the narrative away from the matter at hand and aim for character assassination.

__________________________________________________

ORIGINALLY POSTED FEBRUARY 2nd 2016 under the title: "Lord of the Flies* (#8 Poptech's Truth).

I thought I could avoid Anthony Watts and Andrew 'Poptech's' attack piece on me, figuring I'd get to it later.  But my old pal AL (a debate mate from this past November 23 to December 13th in the "debating sock-puppet" series.) just couldn't resist rubbing it in my face, and since his link went to Poptech's post, I figured, OK in for a nickel, in for a dollar.  

AL writes Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 1:19 citizenschallengeYT Hahahahaha…:P  http://www.populartechnology.net/2016/01/the-truth-about-whatsupwiththatwatts-et.html?m=1

Oh boy, talk about desperation to dig up shit, well they dug and they dug and oh the facts and links they've unearthed. But, even more impressive than what they unearthed - is the vindictive theatrical spin they put on everything.

Fyfe et al. 2016: stamp collecting vs informing and clarifying. Examining a failure to communicate

(edited March 21, 2017)
... and a question of perspective.

Alternately, Behold Seepage in Action.

In working on my review of Lamar Smith’s press release I distractedly glanced at Fyfe et al. 2016 a couple times.  Then given that John Bates’ singled it out in his ClimateEtc attack piece I took the time to read it carefully.  It was written by some of the foremost experts in the field, I’ve listened to their talks on YouTube, I’ve exchanged emails with some.  A couple have endured malicious and vicious attacks based on pure fabricated deception, yet they continue doing world class science.  These are the real deal, heck some are among my heroes.  I don't presume to second-guess such experts about their science.  

Yet, I was stunned reading their treatment of the so-called “global warming hiatus” - it’s not their facts I question, but their presentation.  Can’t help it, I take climate science communication very seriously and their wording knocked me right off my pins.  I've felt compelled to explain my reaction ever since, if only to myself.  I've been spending days wrestling with this and I admit I hope some of the authors and a few others will give me a chance to make my case - I've striven to keep my comments as concise as possible.  Give it a skim.  You decide if I succeed.

NATURE opinion & comment

Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf

Nature Climate Change | Vol 6 | March 2016 | Pages 224 to 228

www.nature.com/natureclimatechange © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

I am reprinting the full text of this paper by right of the Fair Use doctrine - 

for the purpose of doing the following detailed critique.

___________________________________________________________________

co-authors

John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka and Neil C. Swart

____________________________________________________________

The introduction:
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming (b) slowdown or hiatus (a)(e), characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming (c), has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims (d).

_______________________________________________________

Why the labyrinthian phrasing?  Simplify wording. Clarify meaning.  

(a)  Creates a false equivalence between “slowdown” and “hiatus” - hiatus means STOPPED!  But, Global Warming never stopped!

(b)  Creates a false equivalence between “global warming” and “global mean surface warming.”  

(c)   Furthermore: “early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming” -  implies “surface” warming slowdown (or faux hiatus) is a symptom of a “global” warming slowdown.

(d)  “Evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”  Given the paragraph's convoluted wording one could easily conclude this is saying: the “hiatus” (that is global warming stopping) is not contradicted

… which is exactly what the contrarian PR machine was hoping they could twist any science into.  Why make it so easy?

(e)  Why even use the politically charged term “hiatus” beyond a footnote?  What possible purpose does it serve other than to fatally wound clarity and invite gross misinterpretation?

This paper seems a textbook example of “seepage” in action.  Or as I would phrase it, unconsciously adapting the contrarian’s script.  Please keep this in mind as you continue.

_______________________________________________________________________

¶1  A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5)1 — indicates that the so-called surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, 

Fyfe 2016, Global Warming Hiatus? Nope. Not even!

I've been spending the past couple days digesting Fyfe 2016 on account of John Bates, and his ClimateEtc hit-piece, which uses it to imply the global warming ‘hiatus’ was a real thing >>> Mind you “hiatus" = "A pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process.”:

J. Bates writes: "The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown)" 

Link to a readable Fyfe et al. 2016: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf

When I read Fyfe 2016 I was stunned and appalled by how it was worded.  Yet, it’s co-authored by some of the foremost climate scientists in the world.  A couple having endured vicious and vile attacks fabricated out of pure lies at the hands of the Republican PR campaign of climate science deception.  Scientists whom I consider genuine heroes.  I am under no illusion.  I cannot dispute their facts, but it's the way their facts were presented that seems to me a prime example of the “Seepage” suffered by well meaning, but extremely conservative and cautious scientists, playing right into the Contrarian’s Script, rather than clarifying how our global heat and moisture distribution engine operates in a manner were it can “click” with non-sciencie citizens.

Before I post my critique, which is far from finished, I want to share what Sou at HotWhopper has to say.  She was trained as a scientist so approaches this paper differently than I do, from my own street-level perspective, that of a high school grad (‘73) lay-person, albeit one that’s spent a lifetime paying attention to developing Earth Sciences and the evolving insights they’ve offered into Earth’s fantastical pageant and our place in that pageant.

Therefore I think it appropriate to first REPOST her article of February 25th.  She explains the scientific perspective in a way I never could.  I’m going to begin with her closing paragraph because that’s exactly what I’m struggling with.  I also a thank you Sou, for allowing me to repost your work.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Global surface warming continues without pause contrary to denier claims

Sou | Feb 25, 2016

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/02/global-surface-warming-continues.html

I want to start with Sou's closing paragraph since it echoes the thing that got under my skin and that my review is struggling to articulate.

   =====

This is a useful paper from a scientific perspective. 
From the perspective of informing the public, I would have preferred the authors were more constructive rather than making it appear there are disputes in scientific circles when there aren't.  

Deniers aren't going to read the paper. They aren't going to care that there was no change in the long term trend. They aren't going to care that the models differed from observations because the estimated forcings were wrong. All they are going to do is point to the paper falsely claiming it is "evidence" that scientists disagree, when on these issues there would be very little disagreement (if any) among climate scientists.  

Or they'll do as Anthony Watts {and also John Bates}  did, and point to the paper claiming there was a "hiatus" or stopping of global warming, when there isn't and hasn't been. 

_________________________________________

There's another new paper out in Nature Climate Change today that discusses the recent trends on global surface temperature. It's by a rash of notable authors: John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka, Neil C. Swart. Anthony Watts heralded the paper (archived here), which is unusual because he normally scoffs at the findings of most of these authors. He referred to an article in the Examiner newspaper, which claims that this paper contradicted "another study last June" that stated that the "the hiatus was just an artifact that “vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.”

Well it doesn't contradict it. Needless to say Anthony and the Examiner was comparing apples and oranges.

Confirmed Lamar Smith Manipulated Bates (feb 5th) A Line by Line Review.

Been doing some reviewing and noticed I got carried away with my introduction to the examination of Lamar Smith's press release - "Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records" - probably lost readers before the main course began.  I'm correcting that with this post.  If you'd like some introduction visit previous posts - For the appendix link here.

(now including a complete list of committee members and contact info)

Incidentally, a 30 point complaint has been filed by Grantham Research Institute with the Independent Press Standards Organization for gross misrepresentation of the facts in the Mail's Feb 5th article written by David Rose.  It clearly disputes all of the claims and arguments Lamar makes in the following. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mail-on-Sunday-follow-up-February-2016.pdf

_____________________________________

Now to the Press Release that started everyone talking about the Bates Motel mystery.

Congressman Lamar Smith: 

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records  -  

Feb 5, 2017. -  Press Release

step inside >>>

WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“Karl Study”){I changed those to “Karl et al. 2015”}. According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, (Karl et al. 2015) was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus 

_________________________

{11}    PeterThorne:

… The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. 

John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. 

This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases {Bates’} misrepresentations are publicly verifiable. …

_______________________________________

and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

________________________

All this begs the question:

Is Bates obsessed with forcing tedious drawn out archiving red tape for quality control standards?    Or, is Bates’ concerned with delaying release of scientific information as long as possible?

{4}  Scott K. Johnson:

“   Bates alleges that the Karl et al. 2015 was “rushed” for political reasons, but Peterson said the reality was that NOAA was well behind the times, waiting to include known improvements like additional recording stations in the rapidly warming Arctic. 

“I had been arguing for years that we were putting out data that did not reflect our understanding of how the temperature was actually warming—[for] literally years we slowed down to try to account for some of these processing things that we had to do,” Peterson said. (At the time of the Karl paper, NOAA’s dataset showed less warming in recent years than other datasets, like NASA’s.) … ”

… Bates expected the same approach (as satellites) from his surface temperature counterparts, but Peterson explained that their work with weather station data was not nearly so high-stakes—problems could easily be fixed on the fly. The engineering-style process NOAA was using for endlessly double-checking the software for all dataset updates could drag on for quite a long time—years, in fact—and Bates opposed any attempt to speed this up. Peterson and other scientists were naturally anxious to incorporate changes they knew were scientifically important.

_______________________________________

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials. 

_________________________

OR was it self-serving opportunism?

{5}   Warren Cornwall:

Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research.

… Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and (Bates) never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.  …

Diary 2/24/17 - Personal Truths vs. Universal Truths.

Projects are never finished, we just meet deadlines and I'm out of time.  Little rough, but what else is new, still I want to get it out there, it’s an ongoing project and part of it is trying to convey some ideas that I believe are important and that deserve more attention.

Fundamental to my perspective is the appreciation that there is a profound difference between Personal Truths and Universal Truths.

Personal Truths govern matters of the human heart and soul.

Keep in mind that unless you believe in the notion that Earth was created in six days, six thousand years ago, you must realize that humanity’s presence on this Earth is but a minuscule flash in the history of our miraculous planet, which will continue long after we have extinguished ourselves.  

Holy Books are shadow plays.  They are tribal stories professing personal truths that concern the human condition and our own personal journeys as we proceed through our numbered years while grappling with our inescapable ultimate fate.  

Holy books with their colorful imaginations and big expectations are measured in centuries.  How can they possibly represent the God of Light and Time, Creation and Love, an entity who’s awareness spans thousands of millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations of life on this planet? 

Human religions speak to the Human Condition.  They are real, they are valid, but they are also narcissistic and blind to the greater reality of the natural world that surrounds* us.  In fact, the world that created us.  (*Guess, not so much anymore, given the population explosion and mega-megalopolis where people are herded together into pens, far removed from the natural world that sustains all of us.  That is the biosphere that we are devouring at an unfathomable rate.)

That is the realm of Personal Truths.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Universal Truths 
have to do with physical reality.  

God’s stage so to speak.  

Universal Truths govern the geophysics and biology that made Earth the boundless cornucopia that humanity was born into not all that many generations ago. 

Science is the self-critical system intelligent humans with a thirst for understanding the world around them established in order to keep themselves honest.  They have achieved incredible insights because Earth is no trickster, unlike so many of the gods humans obsess over.

The scientific community is composed of intelligent, all around skeptical, (that would include self-skepticism), critical-thinking, informed, competitive individuals spanning the globe and generations.  

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science De Den

________________________________________________

Mr. Smith in contrast is the man with the following financial statement and a faith that maximizing profits and earnings is about all he’s concerned with.

Lamar Smith's constituents =

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811&cycle=2018

BatesMotel#4 - US Rep Lamar Smith - Feb 5th Press Release, his NOAA smear campaign dissected.

(now including a complete list of committee members and contact info)

Incidentally, a 30 point complaint has been filed by Grantham Research Institute with the Independent Press Standards Organization for gross misrepresentation of the facts in the Mail's Feb 5th article written by David Rose.  It clearly disputes all of the claims and arguments Lamar makes in the following. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mail-on-Sunday-follow-up-February-2016.pdf

I’ve taken the liberty of examining Congressman Lamar Smith’s Feb 5th press release about supposed scientific manipulation.  Though under the banner of the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee, the text reads more like a melodramatic PR stunt than any serious effort at understanding.  It’s goal being to hoist up Dr. John Bates as some national hero, while maliciously slandering Dr. Tom Karl and climate scientists’ good reputation.

Smith’s arguments stink of the self-certain prosecutor who refuses to acknowledge that anything exists outside of his bubble of reality.  Which is why I’ve decided to take on the role of defending advocate, so I can cross-examine and share comments with the Congressman, and then I will call up authoritative witnesses to share their story.

Hopefully it will help you better understand the malicious game being played by US Representative Lamar Smith, since they are playing for keeps.

In reading the following keep in mind Lamar’s new age Republican mindset.  Namely that Personal Truths and self-interest allows them to disconnect from recognizing fundamental Universal Truths, such as the geophysics that made Earth the boundless cornucopia that humanity discovered not all that many generations ago.  It’s spooky scary and too few dare call them on it.  More need to pitch in.  Can you help?

Admittedly I can imagine how easily Lamar’s self-certain slander and derision is embraced by people who are too preoccupied getting through their own day to days, scared people with little time or sympathy for worrying about what’s happening to the planet that we depend on for everything.  But that doesn’t make it right or honest or honorable.   Certainly doesn’t make it correct no matter how much they lie to themselves and others.

I did not change or rearrange any of his text, I simply inserted a paragraph break at every item of note.  Sometimes commenting but often simply sharing relevant quotes from a dozen authoritative sources.  

I’ve collected all of them in an appendix that includes long quotes and links.  Since the whole thing got unwieldy I’ve split it off into it’s own post so the two can be viewed side by side, an abbreviated appendix is listed at the end of this post.  I’ve also linked the author’s names to their stories.  Please think about what the GOP is trying to pull here.  

I’m just a working guy doing this in what scattered spare time I can manage.  It probably leaves a lot to be desired.  It is what it is, still look through it, bet you'll find some interesting thoughts. Please think about it because your future hangs in the balance. How successful Trump and the GOP are in the next weeks and months and year or two, will make all the difference in the world to your future.

If We The People keep allowing them to believe their fantasy, its hello Orwell like you never imagined.  Only hope is getting some of those self-certain imaginary bubbles to pop.

If you’re still reading think about how you can improve on this.  How could you better manage these sorts of gold mines worth of information.  I’m not concerned about attribution, my concern is trying to inspire some to do this a hell of a lot better and to figure out how to have an impact on people.  All this information I’ve collected in a few hours worth of effort, with reading and digesting taking another few, simple homework projects.  A sharp young student can do it in a fraction of that.  The evidence is out there! To be found everywhere for the critical thinking student - can you help confront the liars?

Feel free to copy, share, and use the following and please include attribution where appropriate.

{last edit midnight, Mtn. time, Feb 23}

_____________________________________

Now to the Press Release that started everyone talking about the Bates Motel mystery.

Congressman Lamar Smith: 

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records  -  

Feb 5, 2017. -  Press Release

step inside >>>