Comments on: Solomon’s “Divergence” Problem

By: Stilgar

Stilgar — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:33:34 +0000

Dave L and Scott B, read the last quoted box again.

It states that detailing is real and that they could not find evidence that she or any other scientist was ever “detatiled” to the IPCC.

It seems more like their boss gave them (scientists at NOAA working on IPCC stuff) undocumented and unofficial permission to use their NOAA work hours for non-NOAA business and when questioned they gave the impression that she did have official permission and denied the requests.

Without documented official permission to be detailed, any work done for someone/something else (IPCC) is still the property of NOAA and subject to FOIA.

I am sure I don’t need to give Steve any pointers, but this should be a big note for future FOIA denials regarding IPCC ownership of records. Follow up such a denial with a request for the “memorandum of understanding or SF-52 Request for Detail” the scientist is/was supposedly working under. No document = no reason to deny FOIA request.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:31:59 +0000

Seems the IG has one avenue remaining. The explanation given by Solomon sounds very similar to what Phil Jones & Co came up with and was seen in the ClimateGate e-mails. Perhaps there are some emails at NOAA along those lines that have not been uncovered?

By: Jim Cole

Jim Cole — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:50:30 +0000

Hey – what happened to my comment?

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:48:09 +0000

Apparently you haven’t read the Harry_readme file…

By: Earle Williams

Earle Williams — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:20:23 +0000

It clearly was all, because Gene already deleted his.

By: oneuniverse

oneuniverse — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:04:46 +0000

It’s a good thing that the documents were released (after pressure by Steve McIntyre and Dave Holland).

Just as an example, we can see that concerns raised about the paragraph mentioning the Himalayan glaciers disappearing (the wording is actually contradictory) were either dismissed, or acknowledged but not acted upon by the authors. It’s unusual that such a ‘rookie mistake’ could remain after queries by scientists, and the government of Japan. (See the reviewers comments, and Dave Holland’s article ’2035 and all that’).

For further examples, try reading this website. eg. the review comment that it was ‘inappropriate’ to show the decline of late 20th C. tree-ring proxy-temperatures (for the infamous study in question).

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:07:24 +0000

Edward K, How do you know it was all of the documents?

By: justbeau

justbeau — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:02:55 +0000

Folks like Solomon would have probably hoped incoming FOIA’s did not get bubble up to NOAA’s top attorney, a political appointee of President Bush, who might have asked for a serious, responsible response.

By: stan

stan — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:13:20 +0000

So climate scientists just like breaking FOIA laws and obsfucation for the fun of it? That’ll boost one’s reputation for integrity!

By: thisisnotgoodtogo

thisisnotgoodtogo — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:08:03 +0000

“…everyone could issue denials…”
and
[Taken gratuitously (not to mention outrageously ) out of context - as a JOKE, Mike.]
“…we benefit from the answers, not necessarily true ones, to those questions. You know it’s not about the truth at all: it’s about something plausible.”