Saturday, June 30, 2007

Down the Rabett Hole

Anonymous and Steve Bloom bring word that NOAA has disappeared the Historical Climate Network site locations down the Rabett hole. This occurred shortly after Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Fraudet and Anthony Watts declared jihad against the surface station network. Big City Lib had it right when he said:

Frankly, this sounds to me to be exactly what the email suggests it is…an attempt to protect volunteers from harassment by the kind of conspiracy nuts that Surface Stations is likely to inspire.
there must have been a considerable kickback from those who maintain the station when McIntyre's crew came around to give lectures.

UPDATE: BCL has some more words on this at his blog

The usual suspects have donned the harrumphing regalia, but Doug Hoyt wrote something interesting
I just got back from trying to photograph a weather site and was told that the weather service had told them that people might come around asking to photograph the site. They were ordered to tell people that photographs are not allowed.
The back story will be interesting.

UPDATE: Anonymuse returns in the comments

When Climate Auditors attempted,
NOAA bureaucrats to cajole,
The station data disappeared,
Down a Rabett hole.

"I swear its a conspiracy.
They want to hide the stations.
They've painted Stevenson screens in camo,
And severed all relations."

"They won't reply to my e-mails,
And refuse to pick up the phone.
I know the station manager's there,
I see him all alone."

"By night, they're removing blacktop
and laying down the sod,
To make it all look A-OK
An A-1 site, by God."

"With guards around the perimeter,
I can't get near enough,
To take a decent photo,
You know, it's really tough."

We gotta show the world,
What NOAA's trying to hide,
These Global-warming believers
Are taking us for a ride.

"If only we could use satellites,
We could get the incriminating pics,
Without risking life and limb,
And dealing with the dicks."

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

When Climate Auditors attempted,
NOAA bureaucrats to cajole,
The station data disappeared,
Down a Rabett hole.

"I swear its a conspiracy.
They want to hide the stations.
They've painted Stevenson screens in camo,
And severed all relations."

"They won't reply to my e-mails,
And refuse to pick up the phone.
I know the station manager's there,
I see him all alone."

"By night, they're removing blacktop
and laying down the sod,
To make it all look A-OK
An A-1 site, by God."

"With guards around the perimeter,
I can't get near enough,
To take a decent photo,
You know, it's really tough."

We gotta show the world,
What NOAA's trying to hide,
These Global-warming believers
Are taking us for a ride.

"If only we could use satellites,
We could get the incriminating pics,
Without risking life and limb,
And dealing with the dicks."

Anonymous said...

You are truly a wanna be scientist my friend. Lay-out facts

EliRabett said...

Ah but we did. NOAA pulled the locations down the Rabett hole. The cooperating observers did not welcome harrasment. I recommend your reading about Max Weber and climate science

Anonymous said...

The two stations that I have visited had operators/observers that were very friendly and very accommodating. Very nice people who do great work.

I was definitely not harassing them, nor does Anthony encourage anything like that. He stresses the fact on the surfacestations site that many of these sites are private residences and to respect private property. How does this equal harassment?

Eli, perhaps your cadre of Kool-Aid drinking, armchair commenter/scientists can provide evidence of harassment.

If not, then let people do their business and butt out.

Anonymous (a real scientist)

bigcitylib said...

Anon (the real scientist),

Whether anyone has ACTUALLY been harassed is less to the point than whether someone MIGHT be harassed. All you have to do to sign up with Mr. Watts project is to download a few forms. There doesn't seem to be any kind of screening of volunteers going on.

Now assume you are the NOAA, and assume (because I don't know this) that if "something" happened at one of your volunteer stations, you might be legally liable. Pulling names and addresses makes a lot of sense.

I am speculating, as is everyone else, and I would sure like to hear from a COOP volunteer on these issues. But this seems a far more likely reason that the NOAA has pulled data and barred photos etc. than that they are helping AL Gore engage in the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, which is the alternate theory going at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1:42 (the "Real" scientist):

You talk about providing evidence, so I'm sure you will be happy to provide evidence that the reason NOAA gave for the removal of information was false and that there is therefore a "coverup" going on?

Where is your evidence for that, Mr. "Real" scientist.

Anonymous said...

To BigCityLib:

Great name BTW...it suits you. Seriously though, on the NOAA website are hundreds of photos , most with names and locations of the volunteers. Why would they post this and keep it archived online since 1999 if privacy is a problem. Why would they even take photos in the first place.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself and I definitely understand liability and access issues/concerns from NOAA, but, as the liberals are always saying, I question the timing. It's very suspect, that's all, and a reasonable explanation should be forthcoming from NOAA. I'm patiently waiting along with many others.

That's all we're saying.

I deal with government agencies on a daily basis, so I definitely have patience.

And who said anything about Al Gore concerning this? I haven't heard Anthony, Steve, or their commenters/posters say anything about the Algore.....

Good day.

Anonymous (a real scientist)

Anonymous said...

Well, I must say I didn't think you had any evidence that NOAA was involved in a cover-up -- and you obviously don't.


"a reasonable explanation should be forthcoming from NOAA. I'm patiently waiting along with many others.

"That's all we're saying."


I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to.

That may be all you are saying (though you seem to be implying significantly more with your statement that "I question the timing. It's very suspect") but it is clearly not all that some are saying

It is generally a good rule (particularly for a scientist) to have very good evidence in hand before using words like "coverup" -- or even implying that such a coverup might have taken place.

Doing so without such evidence in hand is not at all what I would expect from a scientist.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, where have we seen such debunking of mistaken assumptions before?

Some of us actually understand and appreciate what you write, Eli.

Keep up the good work -- and good fight.

Anonymous said...

Whether anyone has ACTUALLY been harassed is less to the point than whether someone MIGHT be harassed.

Sounds like a real free society you're advocating there bigcitylib.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how BCL and Eli project their "harassing" attributes to other people.

I thought science was about questioning and checking theories and collected data. Not turning the inquery into charges of harassment.

If NOAA wants to protect the people who "man" these locations, fine. Just provide photos of the equipment for each and every one of them.

What could that hurt?

guthrie said...

Time spent doing other useful things?

Anonymous said...

Glad you (Guthrie) agree it would be a useful endeavor.

Anonymous said...

If NOAA had done a professional job documenting their surface sites and making this information available, there would be no need for this:

1) "assault" - Real Climate
2) "jihad" - Eli Rabett
3) "harassment" (real or theoretical; don't matter) - BigCityLib

So who's paranoid??

Instead the NOAA looks like a guy with his underwear around his ankles and a toilet seat around his neck; so out of sheer embarassment, pulled the data.

From the small number of photos seen so far, who wouldn't??

- another anonymous