Is NASA hiding its climate data, too?

posted at 5:45 pm on December 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The University of East Anglia’s CRU had to admit this week to destroying the underlying raw data for its anthropogenic global-warming theories, rendering their conclusions untestable — and scientifically speaking, worthless as a result.  AGW advocates say that this does not undermine their case for man-made climate change theory because other organizations have supporting data as well.  One of those organizations, however, has proven as unresponsive as UEA-CRU to demands for the release of the data (via Yid with Lid):

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

The changes go to the heart of Horner’s request.  He wants to see the internal discussions at NASA that surrounded the changed conclusions to determine what they identified as the initial errors in their data processing.  NASA has thus far refused to release the communications, as well as the raw data that they used to create their conclusions and build their models.

It goes without saying that this runs counter to open and transparent scientific pursuit.  Companies conducting R&D for proprietary products and services have the right to keep their data and communications privileged.  However, NASA is a government agency that is ultimately accountable to the citizens of the US, and they are doing research on issues that impact public policy — in fact, greatly impact it.  On both counts, NASA should not force scientists and the citizens that fund that research to sue them before making that information transparent.

On the other hand, if they are that determined to keep that information away from public review, then the public can certainly conclude that the agency has something to hide, and something to fear from accountability.  With UEA-CRU conclusions already off the table, thanks to the destruction of their underlying data, the stonewalling from NASA strongly suggests that AGW doesn’t have any objective, testable science on which to stand.  And while that remains the case, the US and the industrialized nations should focus their environmental efforts on restricting actual pollutants rather than worry about a gas that naturally occurs in the atmosphere — and keep from wrecking their economies with ill-advised taxation schemes.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Trying to distance ourselves from the lack of sticking to financial responsibility by calling ourselves Conservatives rather than Republicans is merely semantics in my book.

And frankly a distinction without a difference.

petunia on December 3, 2009 at 6:44 PM

What?

We need to elect conservative Republicans. The Republican party has gotten into trouble specifically because they’ve strayed from conservative principles.

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM

I feel that I must offer my sincerest apologies to the poor starving polar bears for suggesting that they would sink so low as to eat garbage.

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

I’m near Houston, and they’re calling for snow tomorrow. LOL

capejasmine on December 3, 2009 at 6:47 PM

How are you going to handle the global warming?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Yahoo says I am warmish….

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:47 PM

And you said

Not unless you want to die a horrible death.

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Yahoo! is incorrect, I believe.

chaswv on December 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM

just ignore it. Trust me on this….

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Hopefully wind turbines go as well. They slaughter birds and bats left and right. You never hear the so-called “environmentalists” whining about that. I don’t care if they’re used, but there has to be a better design that isn’t so lethal.

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 6:34 PM

That’s not true. They have shutdown wind projects because of bird killings. I think just recently a project was shut down in Virginia for that reason.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Yahoo! is incorrect, I believe.

chaswv on December 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

So is NOAA. And I was going to kill you if you gave me a hug. So where are you going and why are you worried about Yahoo?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

So where are you going and why are you worried about Yahoo?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

No worries. Chill, babe.

chaswv on December 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

The second to last paragraph of the linked article is veeery interesting:

NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.

In other words, since the CRU raw data has been deleted and no longer has any basis for credibility, the NASA data is the “backbone” of what they’ve still got. It seems obvious that NASA’s raw data, if it still exists, will be hopelessly suspect by the time they release it.

Do the warmists have anything else? Or does this spell the end of their “science” once and for all?

joe_doufu on December 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM

All I want for Christmas is nasa’s gw data set, gw data set, gw data set

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Wow, very few Trolls, if any, on all the AGW threads.

Geochelone on December 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

That’s not true. They have shutdown wind projects because of bird killings. I think just recently a project was shut down in Virginia for that reason.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Well, good.

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

No worries. Chill, babe.

chaswv on December 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM

I am in Alaska… what do you want me to do.. look like lady gaga and wear ice?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

just ignore it. Trust me on this….

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Ok

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Everyone should look up Maurice Strong.

He’s an old-timer now but here’s a money quote from him that makes me wonder if the AGW hysteria really has a WHOLE lot to do with our industrialized country being dismantled from within by believers, including the current pres.

In 1990, Maurice Strong gave an interview to WEST magazine, where he described how he envisioned the Earth being saved:

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

“The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

Two years after making that statement, Strong laid the foundation, and helped in the creation of the Kyoto Protocol.

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

This is just priceless:

Hansen/NASA: Booooooooooooosh!!! is stifling my right to speak and trying to sway my pure scientific method!!!!!

Hansen/NASA: I refuse to explain myself to other scientists and release the data!!!!

gwelf on December 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Funny you should ask:

“”Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week.””

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

Bishop on December 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM

This is interesting because I was wondering how much impact the fraud will have there. I expected that the whole thing will be divided between the poorer countries crying it’s real and they want their money. The up and coming countries crying it’s fake and they will not be hampered by agreements based on flawed research and those that say we should press “Stop” and do a lot more research.

I guess Al figures that the last two will dominate.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM

did I miss anything?
Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2009 at 6:42 PM

The hacker is a hero.
Good summary btw.
darwin on December 3, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Agreed, all freedom loving persons owe this whistleblower a debt of gratitude.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Tell me how this works liberals –

Tobacco companies conduct closed research showing that cigarettes are not a health risk or addictive: Absolutely cannot be trusted.

Research institutions which refuse to show their work and data (e.g., closed research) conclude that AGW is a dire threat requiring a massive change in public policy world wide: Absolutely trustworthy!

gwelf on December 3, 2009 at 6:59 PM

Wow, very few Trolls, if any, on all the AGW threads.
Geochelone on December 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

The lack of trolls should show people something.
I sort of miss them in weird, sort of masochistic way.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM

Back in the 80′s I did consulting work for JPL. At the time a large amount of effort was given to opening up all of their work to the public. I was told time and again that since they were funded by public money, everything they did was in the public domain.

I guess things have changed since then…

tominsd on December 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM

All I want for Christmas is nasa’s gw data set, gw data set, gw data set

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Don’t bother. it looks better in the catalog then it really is.

I fully expect that any data released at this point will be fully cooked to CYA perfection.

The whole thing is being discredited and the only hope is to start over with complete transparency and get back to us in ten to 20 years with real findings .

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Hopefully wind turbines go as well. They slaughter birds and bats left and right. You never hear the so-called “environmentalists” whining about that. I don’t care if they’re used, but there has to be a better design that isn’t so lethal.
darwin on December 3, 2009 at 6:34 PM
++++++++++++++++
Good God, if ever there was a more inapt screen name than yours, I can’t imagine what it would be. First, not that many birds are killed by wind turbines. More importantly – “DARWIN” – only birds that have more sense than to fly into a big moving blade – DUH – would survive, and it quickly would become a non-issue.

fabrexe on December 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Al Gore got this reception when he went to Portland, Oregon to promote his theory of man made global climate change.

Speakup on December 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Wow! In Oregon too?

Awesome … the word is getting out.

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

The true test of whether politicians now believe the Wizards of Global Warming or not: Ask the politician to pose for a photo with one or more of these scientists.
If they believe in the Wizards of Global Warming they will stand in the photo, if not, they don`t want that photo to come back and haunt them when the cold air of truth comes rushing in.

albill on December 3, 2009 at 7:07 PM

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Can it be that America is too independent to be ‘softly tyrranized’? I hope and pray that is the case!

chaswv on December 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Good God, if ever there was a more inapt screen name than yours, I can’t imagine what it would be. First, not that many birds are killed by wind turbines. More importantly – “DARWIN” – only birds that have more sense than to fly into a big moving blade – DUH – would survive, and it quickly would become a non-issue.

fabrexe on December 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Thanks for your reply. However, “darwin” nor evolution have anything to do with birds “having more sense”. Avoidance of the blades would a learned behavior, not an “evolved” one.

Again, thanks for your input and concern.

Should you have any further questions, please visit “Binky” for answers.

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM

This is just the beginning…by this time next year, these guys will be on to the next disaster…probably something like all fertilizer used in food growth has some hormone in it…how do you make a hormone….don’t pay her…..anyway they will find some “worthy” cause to destroy an economy.

right2bright on December 3, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Can it be that America is too independent to be ’softly tyrranized’? I hope and pray that is the case!

chaswv on December 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM

No one has tried to subdue a population this free, or well armed before.

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Should you have any further questions, please visit “Binky” for answers.

darwin on December 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM

I should coin that for the world.

Binky, eats all and leaves none!

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Tell me how this works liberals –

Tobacco companies conduct closed research showing that cigarettes are not a health risk or addictive: Absolutely cannot be trusted.

Research institutions which refuse to show their work and data (e.g., closed research) conclude that AGW is a dire threat requiring a massive change in public policy world wide: Absolutely trustworthy!

gwelf on December 3, 2009 at 6:59 PM

I accept the challenge.

1. Smoking bad. Fat white men getting rich on people smoking bad. Evidence showing anything other then predetermined conclusion bad.

1. AGW bad. Redistributing money based on AGW good. Evidence showing anything other then predetermined conclusion bad.

See that was really easy.

Honestly, all joking aside I really don’t see anything hypocritical in the liberal stance between smoking and AGW. In both cases they suppress and distort the data to reach their predetermined position. Liberals use science to bolster their positions and if it doesn’t they will cook the books because after all it’s for a good cause. For a liberal the predetermined end always justifies the means.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Honestly, all joking aside I really don’t see anything hypocritical in the liberal stance between smoking and AGW. In both cases they suppress and distort the data to reach their predetermined position. Liberals use science to bolster their positions and if it doesn’t they will cook the books because after all it’s for a good cause. For a liberal the predetermined end always justifies the means.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 7:13 PM

In a discussion with an acquaintance from college someone mentioned “big tobacco tactics” and my lib friend immediately jumped on it thinking that Big Oil somehow did something to the AGW researchers research that was like Big Tobacco. I totally couldn’t follow the argument. I tried to explain it the way you just did and got a blank stare.

Like Hitchens said- once “big oil” jumped on the AGW bandwagon you knew it was phony. I can’t see how the libs don’t understand.

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM

This is just the beginning…by this time next year, these guys will be on to the next disaster…probably something like all fertilizer used in food growth has some hormone in it…how do you make a hormone….don’t pay her…..anyway they will find some “worthy” cause to destroy an economy.

right2bright on December 3, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Been there, done that and it doesn’t work. AGW works because it is a world wide issue not a country one. Domestic food problems are just that domestic and get little traction be a global issue gets lots of traction. That’s why nobody cares how our prison inmates are treated. It’s a domestic issue but Gitmo, well that is a really big deal because it’s transnational and the worlds concern.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM

Can it be that America is too independent to be ’softly tyrranized’? I hope and pray that is the case!
chaswv on December 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM

No one has tried to subdue a population this free, or well armed before.
darwin on December 3, 2009 at 7:09 PM

My guess that will be something the National Socialists will work on once they’ve done Healthcare and cap & tax.

They just need the right kind of “Crisis”

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 7:25 PM

Al Gore got this reception when he went to Portland, Oregon to promote his theory of man made global climate change.

Speakup on December 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Thanks for the vid. “Cap the Traitor”. Bwaaahhh.

Geochelone on December 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM

gov’t hides tons, if u only knew… i do

but no necessarily about weather data.

FOIA request should be at least acknowledged with letter.

Some confidential information is bad, but not secret. The gov’t just says don’t release this and the people listen.

that’s all im saying.

father on December 3, 2009 at 7:28 PM

I mean I don’t know. whatever

father on December 3, 2009 at 7:28 PM

First, not that many birds are killed by wind turbines. More importantly – “DARWIN” – only birds that have more sense than to fly into a big moving blade – DUH – would survive, and it quickly would become a non-issue.

fabrexe on December 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Not that many – okay. 40,000 are reported and that’s not tweety, songbirds, birds of prey, all sorts of birds. And then there’s the bats lots & lots of dead bats.

If another industry was killing vultures, eagles and other endangered birds they would be prosecuted by the EPA – wind farms get a free killer pass.

batterup on December 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Scamorama unraveling

CWforFreedom on December 3, 2009 at 7:37 PM

If another industry was killing vultures, eagles and other endangered birds they would be prosecuted by the EPA – wind farms get a free killer pass.

batterup on December 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Oh, you mean like how we’re not allowed to use lead bullets in California anymore because the TWO condors left may get lead poisoning if they eat carrion that has been shot with lead?

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Oh, you mean like how we’re not allowed to use lead bullets in California anymore because the TWO condors left may get lead poisoning if they eat carrion that has been shot with lead?

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Since that is now nation wide in which you can not use lead.. who do you blame?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 7:41 PM

The local liberals in charge have decided to meet the new EPA rules for particulates emitted by burning wood for heat. There will be some days wood stoves won’t be allowed to burn due to an inversion. However, it’s ok to let forest fires or controlled burns go if they’re in sparsely populated areas. Who knew there was good smoke and bad smoke.

Kissmygrits on December 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Since that is now nation wide in which you can not use lead.. who do you blame?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 7:41 PM

It’s been that way for ages in MA but I didn’t know it was nation wide. I limit my shooting to paper animals so I’m not up on the hunting ammo regs. I wouldn’t mind plugging one of the turkeys or deer that come into my yard but I wouldn’t know what to do with them once I got them.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 7:49 PM

From GEOTIMES in 2007:

Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however — and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA measures long-term changes in global surface temperatures using raw data collected at thousands of stations around the world (called the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN). The raw temperature data are then corrected to account for a number of factors, including differences in the time of day of measurements between stations, and differences between rural stations and urban stations (which tend to be hotter, due to the so-called “urban heat island” effect).

On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann’s 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive “hockey stick” temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.

The issue didn’t end there, however. The corrections made almost no difference to global temperature trends, NASA reported, while U.S. mean annual temperatures from 2000 to 2006 were all reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius. Most significantly for climate change skeptics, however, the year 1934 now edges out 1998 as the hottest year in the United States.

McIntyre wrote about his findings in his blog ClimateAudit, dubbing the incorrect data a “Y2K” error and setting off a heated back-and-forth debate that gained traction in the blogosphere. In addition to noting the altered U.S. data, McIntyre also cast doubts on NASA’s methods of collecting data and on its transparency, claiming that the old data should have been kept up on the Web site for comparison, and NASA should have alerted the public to the changes. Furthermore, he says, he had asked repeatedly to see the “source code” NASA uses to calculate its numbers, and had been repeatedly denied. “Certainly I think the way they handled it was inappropriate,” he says. “I’ve got experience in public companies and if you have some bad news or adverse results you have to announce them.”

Climate scientists, however, are asserting that the uproar over the data corrections is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. NASA GISS scientist Jim Hansen, who helped devise the algorithm used to correct for the various climate factors, wrote in an Aug. 10 e-mail that the errors were introduced when the U.S. stations switched between two different datasets in 2000, with the faulty assumption that the second dataset also included the necessary corrections, an error that was recognized and fixed, Hansen said. Acknowledging that 1934 now appears to have been slightly hotter than 1998 in the United States, he noted that the difference in the mean between the two years, of 0.02 degrees Celsius, was and always had been smaller than the uncertainty, although their relative positions are now flipflopped. Globally, however, the changes had no effect on rankings, and 1998 was still by far the warmest year on record before 2005, he says. “For two days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the president, that I must ‘step down,’ or that I must ‘vanish,’” he wrote.

Do notice the verbiage used when problems are found in the data set. We hear much the same, today. And, yes, 1934 was the warmest year for the US in the 20th century and the 1930′s the warmest decade… for those who forgot a little thing called The Dust Bowl caused by high temps and lack of rain, along with poor farming techniques.

Amazing how much deception has been going on and the complicity of politicians and media to not report these things.

ajacksonian on December 3, 2009 at 7:51 PM

It’s been that way for ages in MA but I didn’t know it was nation wide. I limit my shooting to paper animals so I’m not up on the hunting ammo regs. I wouldn’t mind plugging one of the turkeys or deer that come into my yard but I wouldn’t know what to do with them once I got them.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Your Regs

And are you talking about gutting and such?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Oh, you mean like how we’re not allowed to use lead bullets in California anymore because the TWO condors left may get lead poisoning if they eat carrion that has been shot with lead?

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Right –
bullets bad (any reason)
Wind farms good (any reason)

batterup on December 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Since that is now nation wide in which you can not use lead.. who do you blame?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Right –
bullets bad (any reason)
Wind farms good (any reason)

batterup on December 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Craaap. I must’ve written that poorly. It’s absolute bullsh** that we have to use copper now over 2 damn birds that are not evolving. Wind farms suck too. If Darwinism is settled science why must the liberals continue to play God when a species can’t evolve?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Upinak, if I weren’t married I’d join you for that event- sounds like a blast!

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM

And are you talking about gutting and such?

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM

That and storage of something the size of a deer. The turkey would be pretty easy and we did debate picking one off for Thanksgiving but decided against it because the kids don’t really like game meat. Besides I would be poaching because I’m not going to wait for season and pay big dollars for the permits.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

And I apologize for my state’s horrible laws metastasizing to the whole country. Look out, the town just south of me just passed a law outlawing smoking in public parks.

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 8:05 PM

That and storage of something the size of a deer. The turkey would be pretty easy and we did debate picking one off for Thanksgiving but decided against it because the kids don’t really like game meat. Besides I would be poaching because I’m not going to wait for season and pay big dollars for the permits.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Oh sweetie, you need to get into the wild turkey federation and a few other sports programs. I butcher and process my game and I bought freezers for the meet. The only way to go.

My suggestion is find a good group of people in a good hunting venue (bow or rifle) and learn from them. The NRA also does some stuff but the wild turkey federation is probably one of the best orgs I have dealt with when you are a beginner AND they want women to join so if your wife or GF is interested… I highly suggest she take a couple of their classes.

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 8:08 PM

And I apologize for my state’s horrible laws metastasizing to the whole country. Look out, the town just south of me just passed a law outlawing smoking in public parks.

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Good.
I could care less if people smoke but I’m really sick of seeing the thousands of filters that don’t decay pretty much everywhere. I tolerate your smoking but I don’t tolerate your trashing of the streets with your litter. If you want to smoke fine but clean up after yourself.

I’m using a generic you and not you personally.

RagTag on December 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM

And I apologize for my state’s horrible laws metastasizing to the whole country. Look out, the town just south of me just passed a law outlawing smoking in public parks.

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 8:05 PM

Your State.. my State.. oh well! Copper, Stainless Steel… we can’t win and the environmentalist are invading.. they are pro gun for “Organic” meat.

It is making me sick.

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Having published two scientifice papers myself in the field of computer science, I can tell you that if NASA (and CRU) are not forthcoming with their underlying data (as any true scientist would), then they are definitely hiding something. The only reason to not release their underlying data is that the data does not support their theory. That, in turn, means that they are at risk of losing a lot of money, power and scientific credibility. If they had just been honest up front and said that the data does not support the AGW theory they would have been OK. Now they have lied and attempted to deceive, to their own personal detriment and to the detriment of science as a whole.

MeAlice on December 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Ok I am off and running to go north and maybe take the crow of… Wilderness Woman!

you all have a great one!! :)

upinak on December 3, 2009 at 8:14 PM

If memory serves me correctly, NASA was up-front about its EOS weather data until about 1994 or 95. Then some players were closing off security access to raw data, and the logic in OLAP and verbose SQL queries made zero sense. So something started happening then, during the first Clinton/Gore admin.

stonemeister on December 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM

The fact that ANYTHING is hidden is absurd.

I bet the drug companies, the fda, etc… are cleaning up their own scams right about now. delete, delete, delete……must. not. let. the. public. know.

Wow. Just Wow.

Anyone experts in hacking? Please do so.

bridgetown on December 3, 2009 at 8:30 PM

And while that remains the case, the US and the industrialized nations should focus their environmental efforts on restricting actual pollutants rather than worry about a gas that naturally occurs in the atmosphere — and keep from wrecking their economies with ill-advised taxation schemes.

I don’t believe the case has been made that the warming we’ve seen is anthropogenic, BUT, we should note that increased aerosols in the atmosphere [like SO2] coming from increased coal burning may be masking the CO2 forcing, if such dramatic forcing is happening. Paradoxically, shutting down all coal plants and replacing them with say nuclear power may actually warm the planet, as climate cooling aerosols don’t stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2. Just a little food for thought.

toliver on December 3, 2009 at 8:50 PM

It’s worth saying again: You can’t claim something is “peer-reviewed” if you’re not allowing those peers to see the raw data. Without the data that theories are based on, you no longer have science. You’re back to relying on authority like the ancients used to do.

Frankly, global warming has been based on authority for years. But rather than quoting Plato or Aristotle, they would quote the mythical “consensus of scientists.”

tom on December 3, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Next up…USGS. Meat’s back on the menu, boys!

Coronagold on December 3, 2009 at 9:45 PM

Cross-posting from the AGW poll thread…

I came across this idea in a letter to the editor at the WSJ today entitled “Feynman on Scientific Integrity”. The AGW “scientists” and adherents are engaged in Cargo Cult Science, a form of scientific conduct which Richard Feynman spoke of in his commencement address at Caltech in 1974:

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas–he’s the controller–and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards.

For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will — including Wesson oil. So it’s the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.

We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.

For “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” fans, the children of the airplane crash behaved as cargo cultists when they related the story of how they came to be marooned and their hope for rescue.

ya2daup on December 3, 2009 at 9:46 PM

These bloggers are starting to sound like my kids. :-)

OldeSCfan on December 3, 2009 at 9:56 PM

***
Sometimes NASA does really great stuff. And sometimes they screw it up bigtime. Remember the engineer refusing to sign off on the too low launch temperature when Challenger launched into oblivion? The management blew him off and fired the astronauts to their deaths. Other engineers had reported O-ring burning on prior shots–it was ignored. But NASA did get the shot off–no need to wait for warmer temperatures and slip the launch schedules.
***
NASA had a lot to do with the OZONE HOLE bad science. We banned a lot of Freon types for no reason–apparently bad sensors on a U2 research plane caused “sky is falling” stuff again. Ozone hole growth and shrinkage is high altitude physics stuff caused by solar energy.
***
Ditto for some bad sea temperature data that was corrected later–after the panic had set in.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on December 4, 2009 at 12:37 AM

This entire global warming scam has been exposed and only the deniers refuse to admit it. NASA has been infiltrated with con artists who have been cleaning up on research grants and no bid contracts for many years now. Former NASA manager Mark Schoeberl who had become of one the scientific world’s most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth’s atmosphere was sentenced to probation, was fined $10,000 and ordered to put in 50 hours of community service after he plead guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife’s company. He admitted that he had hid some $50,000 in NASA contracts for a company called Animated Earth, which was run by his wife Barbara. The fact of the matter is; if the data supported their theory of man made CO2 driving climate temperatures they would be very anxious to show their raw data as proof. Since they are doing everything they can to hide the decline, we don’t really need to see it to know the theory is a lie.
Ref: here

Dollayo on December 4, 2009 at 3:54 AM

I wondered why Obama bombed the moon.

faraway on December 3, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Scary thought. . . Have you seen Recess The Movie?

I don’t want to give away any of the story but look it up. Seriously.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 4, 2009 at 4:48 AM

Former NASA manager Mark Schoeberl who had become of one the scientific world’s most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth’s atmosphere was sentenced to probation, was fined $10,000 and ordered to put in 50 hours of community service after he plead guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife’s company. He admitted that he had hid some $50,000 in NASA contracts for a company called Animated Earth, which was run by his wife Barbara.

Dollayo on December 4, 2009 at 3:54 AM

Hold up now. All I have to do it pay 20% to the government and pull one 50 hour work week and I too can clear 40K? Where do I sign up?

- The Cat

MirCat on December 4, 2009 at 4:51 AM

Correcting Ocean Cooling: NASA Changes Data to Fit the Models
NASA scientist, Josh Willis, was so concerned that his data, showing ocean cooling, did not fit the official consensus on climate change that he searched for a solution. Eventually he “applied a correction” so the historical ocean temperature record showed a relatively steady increase in line with the climate models. Dr.Willis tells his story at:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2073
The ocean temperature story turned into a modern revival of Goldilock’s and the Three Bears, NASA/NOAA data from satellites are too hot, NASA/NOAA data from Argo monitors are too cold so with scientific brilliance. the NASA/NOAA scientists scrubbed some selected data points, adjusted, corrected or massaged other and voila, perfectly correct temperatures to make the ocean temperature just right and published a paper confirming that the oceans are warming. ‘If the facts don’t support the theory change the facts’ or is it ‘two wrongs can be made right’ the new scientific motto of the AGW supporters. The moral seems to be that millions of dollars are being spent on NASA/NOAA programs that cannot provide good accurate temperature data so humans must correct the data, ergo human caused global warming.

Patrick49 on December 4, 2009 at 7:10 AM

To quote Meetball, “Life is a lemon and I want my money back”.

If one element of one footnote was fake in a Paper paid by a Public Grant, I want them charged with fraud and the money refunded.

barnone on December 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM

There are a few things that can affect the planet.

A large Comet or Asteroid. The Sun. A Class 4 civilization.

Humans will not kill the planet.. ever. Even if we unleashed every nuclear weapon we have, the planet would survive.

James on December 4, 2009 at 10:05 AM

If memory serves me correctly, NASA was up-front about its EOS weather data until about 1994 or 95. Then some players were closing off security access to raw data, and the logic in OLAP and verbose SQL queries made zero sense. So something started happening then, during the first Clinton/Gore admin.

stonemeister on December 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM

That is about the time this scam was hatched. I wonder how many were in on it at the beginning and how many just parrot the same false data.

Mostly I wonder is the earth even heating or is it all a hoax? And will we ever get the truth.

petunia on December 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM

‘If the facts don’t support the theory change the facts’
Patrick49 on December 4, 2009 at 7:10 AM

Perfect analysis and a very easy to understand explanation to those who wanted to know what all the fuss is about.

The Goldilocks comparison is good too.

petunia on December 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM

The science is not settled:

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Doorgunner on December 4, 2009 at 12:13 PM

RED HOT LIES,” by Chris Horner was released a year ago but the information presented seems prophetic with the revelations of “Climategate.”

Chris Horner digs deeply into the mirk and mire of AGW “science” and profiles the major players, exposing the huge scam perpetrated upon the world (especially the West) and just how much this has hurt us economically.

I highly recommend “RED HOT LIES” to those interested in understanding how science has been corrupted and what we can do about it.

(Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in the book)

drewas on December 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM

You Better Be Good You Better NOT Cheat.

Who says there is no Santa? It’s beginning to feel a lot like
Christmas. Santa’s helpers were busy hacking emails earlier this year;) Just one of the early gifts Americans received. He does live at the
North Pole.

Dr Evil on December 4, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Chris Horner’s “Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming” is a good read in case nobody’s pointed that out yet…

Sharke on December 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Ha! Windmills will save the Earth. And we are all to start wearing clogs too, they last a lot longer than Nikes and we will no longer have to exploit 3rd worlders by giving them jobs they didn’t otherwise have. I’m getting behind windmills and clogs starting in 2010.

Sharke on December 4, 2009 at 1:55 PM

It’s all abpit funding. Of course they falsified data.

TrickyDick on December 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Houston, we have a problem…..

ted c on December 4, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Remember how the “deniers” are subsidized by “big oil” .. well Gerald R. Davis (Group Planning, Shell International Petroleum, London, UK) and Douglas D McKay of Shell International Limited, London show up on a few of the CRU e-mails

Thank all of you who have attended the SRES Lead Authors’ meeting (17-19 September 1997) (0876171248).
Meeting at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California to review the work progress of the four modeling groups (0884731847).
Request for firm number of attendees to IPCC SRES Meeting (0885318160).
Report of minutes of minutes of the SRES informal modelers’ meeting (0887665729).
RE-schedule of the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (0888364876).
Info on upcoming IPCC SRES meeting (0888611422).
A solicitation for review of the influence of social and economic policies on future carbon emissions for the SRES (0889047457).
Sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on storylines and scenarios (0889554019).
Change of venue for Lead Authors meeting (0893188400).
Guidelines on how to present the IS99 storylines and scenarios (0894639050).
Info on upcoming next SRES Lead Authors meeting in Beijing, China (0904080701).
Request for RSVPs to next SRES Meeting (0904762907).
A solicitation of input for the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) AR3 (0914013281).

In 0962818260, they mention a meeting to have Shell “… accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund …”

J_Crater on December 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM

It’s difficult to keep data and statistics honest.

I have experience, if it’s not the marketers (yes those that want to sell something – even a lie) then it’s the buffoon higher ups – those that know enough to be dangerous.

But it seems like we have socio-paths with their hands on the reigns. Not hard to believe.

It’s in the realm of possibility, alright.

Even in Sociology it’s said that serial kills attract one another, apparently serial Liars attract one another too.

I’m not in that group you see, when the Marketers told me to lie I quit the job cold. I walked out on the company unannounced and very confident that I could get another job elsewhere.

father on December 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM

It’s a joke that NASA is even involved in this. They should be worrying about going to Mars and space exploration not this baloney. They’ve become a typical government agency that’s lost it’s way, it’s original purpose, become bogged down, and ineffective. Plus they exhibit the politicized “Science” that we see coming from the EPA and most other government run research shops lately.

scharlesc on December 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM

NASA has already been caught falsifying the data to justify the now-discredited “hockey stick” and to justify the now-discredited assertion that 1998 was the warmest year. The people applying the pressure were reverse engineering what NASA data they could get their hands on, and came up with enough proof of fraud (“mistakes”) to force NASA to change their story several times. And I don’t know why anyone pays any attention at all to Hansen, who has been caught several times in outright lies.

The next shoe to drop after NASA is forced to release their data is the mass discreditation of the data sources. Most of the weather stations in America have been compromised over time to the point where the data they produce is only interesting: not accurate. For a truly scientific analysis of the weather stations’ accuracy, see:

http://www.surfacestations.org

At this site you will find that 69% of the stations have probable errors of 2 degrees or more: thus completely wiping out temperature changes which have been alleged over the last 100 years. Yet NASA wants us to believe that they can use this data to predict temperature 100 years into the future with an accuracy of a few tenths of a degree!!

SurfaceStations.org publishes ALL of its data and backs it up with pictures, measurements, GPS data, etc. It’s a very interesting site for anyone who is interested in temperature changes in North America, and gives you insight into how scientific weather measurements can be corrupted over time.

NASA should put up or shut down. A “scientific” agency which will not publish data and cannot stand scrutiny has no business managing the risk to human lives on space adventures. A responsible agency must be able to face the truth, even when it leads to a disappointing result.

The NASA I worked with in the 1960′s (as an engineer working for a major contractor) was very different. There was no nonsense: everything was published, tested, double-checked, and then checked some more. Everyone was focused on making sure the astronauts came home safely. Anyone who faked data back then would have been worse-than-fired: he would be shunned by the entire industry for the rest of his life.

landlines on December 4, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Two years after making that statement, Strong laid the foundation, and helped in the creation of the Kyoto Protocol.

NTWR on December 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM

This is not a religion, it is a cult.

Johan Klaus on December 4, 2009 at 10:38 PM

The NASA I worked with in the 1960’s (as an engineer working for a major contractor) was very different. There was no nonsense: everything was published, tested, double-checked, and then checked some more. Everyone was focused on making sure the astronauts came home safely. Anyone who faked data back then would have been worse-than-fired: he would be shunned by the entire industry for the rest of his life.

landlines on December 4, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Thanks for you’re interesting post. My father worked on all the Apollo flights to the moon in Cape Canaveral Florida as an electrical design engineer for the defense division of GM. He worked very hard for long hours at the cape, often times sleeping there for days at a time, to make sure those missions were successful. This kind of junk science would have never been tolerated, 100s of people would have been blowing the whistle if anything like this would have ever happened. I lost dad 6 months ago, but he was so proud of the work he did on the space program that he had the C.S.M. (Command Service Module) engraved on his tombstone.

Dollayo on December 4, 2009 at 11:18 PM

Back in 1991, NASA, facing budget cutbacks, prematurely released atmospheric data from a space shuttle mission showing an increased amount of various ozone depleting gases in the Northern Hemisphere. Media hysteria soon morphed the information into a proclamation that a hole in the ozone layer is forming around the North Pole. Congress quickly passed legislation further restricting the use of chlorofluorocarbons by industries to the shouts of “an ozone hole is now over the White House.” NASA also received increased funding.

At the same time I was completing my final year in college and doing astronomical research at the university’s observatory. When you do astronomy you have to know what is in the atmosphere to account for its effect on your data. I was aware of the ozone depleting gases. In fact, I was able to see it with my own eyes and I knew its true origin.

This was all happening during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. That single volanic eruption released hundreds of times more ozone depleting material into the upper atmosphere than humans have through all of history.

Months later NASA released the official report and blamed Mt. Pinatubo. A few days later NASA Chief Administrator Richard Truly retired and ever since very little is mentioned about the ozone layer and its possible depletion by man-made chemicals.

So whenever NASA claims they have proof of Global Warning, especially during budget time, I remind myself NASA is just another government agency trying to acquire as much funding as possible and is not above using a little alarmism and number tweaking.

AaronGuzman on December 4, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Certain missions which I won’t mention here, are NASA’s ace in the hole when trouble errupts. A big ‘finding’ comes out or is sought to calm the newspapers down and push the bad stories below the fold if you will. I can personally vouch for Al Gore visiting one of the Space Centers back when he was running for VP with Bilbo and its quite possible from where I saw him visit, that he is fully aware that solar activity is affecting all planets and NOT just earth. Recent weather data from the other planets, like MARS, another big newspaper safe haven, show weather on other planets is cycling like ours is. Its all a draw away from the real issues. Its a shame NASA is being used this way but it is and has been for quite a while now.

johnnyU on December 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM

We’re basically screwed.

This topic only has 130 comments while Tiger Woods and some very used woman or, more specifically, a very utilized vagina (medical term) has 20,000 comments.

Last night I spoke to a Univ of Maryland employee that works in Environmental Sciences and she didn’t know about Climate Gate, NASA Gate.

It’s not being reported, thanks Allah.

father on December 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM

***
HI LANDLINES–I worked with a couple of engineers who were contractors with NASA in the early days. One worked on the Lunar Lander software, another worked on space shuttle computer hardware. Both were very good at their jobs, and totally open and honest.
***
Things seem to go downhill fast when the politicians start doing the engineering! Some of these guy’s work is probably still flying with the shuttle.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on December 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM

On the other hand, if they are that determined to keep that information away from public review, then the public can certainly conclude that the agency has something to hide, and something to fear from accountability.

Ed, this last paragraph reads exactly like a birther argument….Nothing wrong with that. Just sayin’

virgo on December 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2