Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

 

 

Stephen Dinan

 

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.

 

Mr. Horner, a noted global warming skeptic and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.

 

His fight mirrors one in Europe that has sprung up over the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK after thousands of e-mails from the center were obtained and appear to show researchers shaving their data to make it conform to their expectation, and show efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.

 

The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.

 

The center has also had to acknowledge in response to a freedom of information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind global warming.

 

Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data-shaving has happened at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), another leading global warming research center.

 

Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

 

"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."

 

He said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn't say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data. The White House has dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.

 

"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week.

 

But Republicans on Capitol Hill say the revelations deserve a congressional investigation. Republican leaders also sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson Wednesday telling her she should withdraw a series of EPA rules until the global warming science can be better substantiated. For now, climate scientists are rallying around the British researchers.

 

Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University who is under fire for his involvement in the British e-mail exchanges, said the e-mails' release was timed to skunk up next week's U.N. global warming summit in Copenhagen. Mr. Obama is planning to attend.

 

"They've taken scientists' words and phrases and quoted them out of context, completely misrepresenting what they were saying," Mr. Mann told AccuWeather.com in an interview, calling it a "manufactured controversy."

 

NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.

 

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.

 

The institute blamed a "minor data processing error" for the changes but says it doesn't make much difference since the top three years remain in a "statistical tie" either way.

 

Mr. Horner said he's seeking the data itself, but he also wants to see the chain of e-mails from scientists discussing the changes.

 

The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days. Mr. Horner says he's never received an official acknowledgement of his three separate FOIA requests, but has received e-mails showing the agency is aware of them.

 

He said he has provided NASA with a notice of intent to sue under FOIA, but said he also hopes members of Congress get involved and demand the information be released.

 

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.

 

On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CEI was founded in March 1984. In 1986, it began its "free market legal program," which seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency (see the case study, Fuel efficiency standards and the laws of physics).

 

By 1992, CEI's annual budget had reached $765,000. That year it helped coordinate "Earth Summit Alternatives" to counter the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, generating anti-environmental commentary that appeared on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, National Review, Washington Times, Detroit News, Investor's Daily, Inside EPA's Clean Air Report, CNBC, C-SPAN, CBS Radio and Voice of America. It also published its first book, titled Environmental Politics.

 

In 1992, Jonathan Adler, CEI's director of environmental studies, wrote Implementing the U.S. Clean Air Act in Arizona in conjunction with the Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Policy Research, a small think tank headed by Michael Sanera, a former professor of political science at Northern Arizona University and an adjunct scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation.[3] The following year they wrote another report "Reforming Arizona's Air Pollution Policy".

 

In 1994 CEI began working on a book with the Alabama Family Alliance and the Arizona Institute for Public Policy Research (also founded and headed by Sanera). Tentatively titled An Environmental Primer for Parents: How to Talk to Your Children About Environmental Issues, the book was eventually published under the title Facts Not Fear, with Sanera and Jane S. Shaw listed as the authors. It claims that environmental education in the classroom is a politicized effort to indoctrinate kids into becoming activists. Sanera was also instrumental in gutting a previously strong environmental education mandate in Arizona. He and CEI have become leading forces behind an ongoing, industry-funded campaign to eliminate funding for environmental education throughout the United States.[4]

 

In 1995, CEI joined several other think tanks in attacking Our Stolen Future, the book about environmental endocrine disruptors by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and Peter Myer. Just prior to the book's release, CEI released two separate studies belittling "the hypothetical risks to human health" discussed in Colborn's book. On the same day that CEI's reports came out, Consumer Alert (run by Frances B. Smith, the wife of CEI founder Fred Smith) issued its own news release labeling the book "a scaremongering tract."[5]

 

In March 1996, CEI's Michelle Malkin and Michael Fumento published "Rachel's Folly," which claims that dioxin is good for you.[6] CEI's Jonathan Tolman (who holds a bachelor's degree in political science), published a study that month titled "Nature's Hormone Factory," claiming that naturally-occurring chemicals produced by plants and other living organisms are as dangerous as industrial chemicals.[7] In December of that year, CEI submitted comments opposing the EPA's proposed air quality rule to limit particulate emissions, claiming that "the EPA has failed to consider whether the proposed standard may actually increase mortality due to reductions in disposable income that compliance efforts may produce. ... At all times regulation imposes costs that mean less real income to individuals for alternative expenditure. That deprivation of real income itself has adverse health effects, in the form of poorer diet, more heart attacks, more suicides."[8]

 

In 1997 Boston Globe reporter Jeff Jacoby described CEI as "one of Washington's feistiest think tanks." The same year CEI's Adler lobbied Congress to cut off federal funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.[9]

 

In July, it participated in an anti-environmental summit sponsored by the conservative Western States Coalition in Spokane, Washington. Under the theme of "Responsible Legislation Through Education: Solutions That Work," the conference showcased Michael Sanera's attacks on environmental education. Ironically, while much of the conference focused on the alleged indoctrination of school children by environmentalists, the event featured a "trade show" of industry-sponsored K-12 curricula and materials.[10]

 

CEI was also active in opposing the 1997 international global warming negotiations in Kyoto. CEI staff including Fred Smith, James Sheehan, Jonathan Adler and Marlo Lewis featured prominently in a list of "experts" provided to reporters by the industry-funded Global Climate Coalition. "The campaign against the 1997 Kyoto global warming treaty waged by right-wing think tanks has been another area where corporate America has heavily invested in right-wing policy groups that advance its interest" noted author David Callahan in 1999."The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been a particularly aggressive advocate of the notion that global warming is a 'theory not a fact.' Since 1991, CEI's budget has grown from less than $1 million to over $ 4 million."[11] Callahan also noted that although the extent to which conservative think tanks rely on corporate funding support varies widely, CEI and the American Enterprise Institute "have two of the highest levels of corporate support, with both getting roughly 40 percent of their 1996 revenues from corporations."[11]

 

On October 29, 1999, CEI and Consumer Alert submitted comments opposing a proposed rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms banning makers of alcoholic beverages from labeling their products with statements about the alleged benefits of "moderate consumption" of alcohol.[12] In March 2001, CEI joined other similar think tanks and experts for hire (including the American Council on Science and Health, Steven J. Milloy, Dennis Avery, Consumer Alert and the National Council on Public Policy Research) in an open letter criticizing Starbucks for its decision to serve milk products only from cows not treated with genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone."Your action is unfounded, and harms consumers and the environment," they stated.[13]

 

CEI has also worked to cultivate a relationship with John Stossel, the controversial correspondent for ABC-TV's 20/20 program. When Stossel came under fire in August 2000 for citing nonexistent scientific studies on a 20/20 segment bashing organic foods, CEI set up a "Save John Stossel" website to help him keep his job.[14] Stossel returned the favor the following year by working with Michael Sanera to put together a program titled "Tampering With Nature" that focused on attacking environmental education. In March 2001, a pesticide industry front group known as Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) sent out an action alert memorandum to its members. "Mr. Sanera has been contacted by ABC News," the memo stated." A producer for John Stossel is working on a program on environmental education. He needs examples of kids who have been 'scared green' by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism in the classroom. ... He has some examples, but needs more. Would you send out a notice to your group and ask if they know of some examples. Then contact Mr. Sanera ... Let's try to help Mr. Stossel. He treats industry fairly in his programs."[15]

 

Apparently neither Stossel nor CEI applied similar standards of fairness toward the schoolteachers and students they interviewed. Prior to the program's air date in July, several California parents of children interviewed by Stossel filed a complaint with ABC, stating that they had been misled about the nature of the program and the types of leading questions their kids would be asked. Seattle teacher John Borowski also reported being approached] by ABC producer Ted Balaker, who attempted to trick him into appearing on camera by claiming that he was making a documentary about Earth Day, while denying that he was working with Stossel and Sanera.[16]

 

CEI's commentaries frequently appear in media venues such as ABC's 20/20, American Spectator, Christian Science Monitor, Consumers' Research, Crossfire, Forbes, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Moneyline, New York Times, Policy Review, PBS, Reader's Digest, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Washington Times.

 

 

Personnel

CEI employs approximately 40 office people, including support staff and in-house and adjunct policy analysts. The personnel list is so extensive it has been shifted to Competitive Enterprise Institute/Personnel.

 

 

Funding

 

CEI's Budget

Since 1991, CEI's budget has grown from less than $1 million to over $ 4 million." David Callahan also noted that although the extent to which conservative think tanks rely on corporate funding support varies widely, CEI and the American Enterprise Institute "have two of the highest levels of corporate support, with both getting roughly 40 percent of their 1996 revenues from corporations." [1]

 

In its IRS Form 990 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, CEI reported revenues totalling $2,919,537 almost all of which were in the form of contributions from unspecified sources. Its net assets were $1,670,808. [2] (Pdf)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yea just a little biased..... and funded from surprise the ultra right wing and the same lobbying groups

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 1991, CEI's budget has grown from less than $1 million to over $ 4 million

 

David meet Goliath

 

Green Budget alone is somewhere over 34 million. And that does not include what has been given to these wackos in the obama stimulus, say another $20,000,000 Green GiveAway

 

It is funny and also sad how so many believe the lies thrown/taught to them on global warming. Everyone needs to do their own research and see who is behind enviromental bills such as cap & trade, who benefits from it? Could it possibly be Al Gore?

 

 

Cap-And-Trade: Al Gore's Cash Cow

 

He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It's a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's all about to unravel? Or should I say the bark is falling off the tree??!!

 

What a surprise.

 

This has ALWAYS been about politics, not science IMHO. The science I see can't be changed any way.

 

Frantic time on the lunatic left?? Surge in Aggan and one of their most loyal boys breaks out to announce the fraud RE Global Warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T the "green" movement is filled with garbage also, however the massive amount of science and observable facts are overwhelming. If you want to fall for the same tactics the tobacco industry did than go ahead.... how did that work out....

 

 

It worked out great for the General Funds of all the states that won that class action suit.

 

Problem is, they don't adhere to the terms and conditions of the settlement - funds going to smoking programs to prevent trial among youngsters and to stop those who are currently smoking - and, instead, use the settlement as nothing more than a cash cow to cover their insatiable need to spend and spend.

 

The Government loves big tobbacco. They just won't say it out loud.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T the "green" movement is filled with garbage also, however the massive amount of science and observable facts are overwhelming. If you want to fall for the same tactics the tobacco industry did than go ahead.... how did that work out....

 

 

Sev dont tell me you believe the lie that global warming is man made.

 

You need to go back to school and study geology and volcanoes.

 

 

damn sev its cold outside i need to go get a sweater and put on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sev dont tell me you believe the lie that global warming is man made.

 

You need to go back to school and study geology and volcanoes.

 

 

damn sev its cold outside i need to go get a sweater and put on.

 

T you should know I believe in the science of global warming. I am fairly certain from what i have read and studied that Man definately has had a impact. I think the impact is fairly important but it is definatelty not the only variable.

 

I am not into green initiatives probably for what other conservationists are for. My reasons stem from National Security related self sustainability along with future impact on my children and grandchildren.

 

Internal combustion fueled by enriching regions with religous extremism is not something I am interested in. I also believe that erroring on the side of caution is only prudent and conservative. I dont like the cap and trade model however i do realize that because of the lobbying mechanism entrenced coal/utlity etc have a pretty good stranglehold on stifling innovation.

 

The observable and testable historical results from both ice cores/tree rings/geological observations etc are pretty undeniable. Does that mean we are the only reason? NO but we are definately having an impact, it might be the tipping point impact or it in all likelihood is far more significant. Either way it is important for our childrens future that we start pushing more self sustainable power generation (i think Tidal generators are going to be really important) and also move vehicles away from internal combustioni... oil is a finite resource and a dirty one.

 

I do think like the ethanol movement (all money no substance corn/agri lobbyist) that their are some fair critiques... flying around in personal jets to speak about global warming is not exactly leading by example.

 

Now the "other" side are pulling the same pseudo PR based "science" moves that tobacco used to discount the real science about Tobacco and carcinigons..... That is BS and really from a "moral" standpoint its bs. We are sacrificing our childrens future for today's easy gain.... thats not the way I raise my children.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T you should know I believe in the science of global warming. I am fairly certain from what i have read and studied that Man definately has had a impact. I think the impact is fairly important but it is definatelty not the only variable.

 

I am not into green initiatives probably for what other conservationists are for. My reasons stem from National Security related self sustainability along with future impact on my children and grandchildren.

 

Internal combustion fueled by enriching regions with religous extremism is not something I am interested in. I also believe that erroring on the side of caution is only prudent and conservative. I dont like the cap and trade model however i do realize that because of the lobbying mechanism entrenced coal/utlity etc have a pretty good stranglehold on stifling innovation.

 

The observable and testable historical results from both ice cores/tree rings/geological observations etc are pretty undeniable. Does that mean we are the only reason? NO but we are definately having an impact, it might be the tipping point impact or it in all likelihood is far more significant. Either way it is important for our childrens future that we start pushing more self sustainable power generation (i think Tidal generators are going to be really important) and also move vehicles away from internal combustioni... oil is a finite resource and a dirty one.

 

I do think like the ethanol movement (all money no substance corn/agri lobbyist) that their are some fair critiques... flying around in personal jets to speak about global warming is not exactly leading by example.

 

Now the "other" side are pulling the same pseudo PR based "science" moves that tobacco used to discount the real science about Tobacco and carcinigons..... That is BS and really from a "moral" standpoint its bs. We are sacrificing our childrens future for today's easy gain.... thats not the way I raise my children.

 

 

I am glad you see that biigest problem at solving anything here lies on politicians greedy shoulders, but as you know there is a way to use clean burning coal power plants, but after spending 50 mil on research our own Governmant has canceled out that ideal.

 

Clean Coal

 

When we can take away the greed we may be able to get somewhere on this issue, but this is supposed to be a free nation and the last thing we need is for corupt politicians to continue to lie and falsify documents for their own goodwill at the expense of all.

 

These people like al Gore should be ridiculed and shamed instead we still have a liberal news media who want to talk about Tiger woods's infidelity instead of real issues and real news that has discovered that all of us have been lied to.

 

Would you agree that Al gore and his carbon tax initiative is in the wrong?

 

In your opinion how should al Gore and all of these scientist who have lied be dealt with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s Over, Al Gore.

 

Abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize

 

Aaron Dykes

 

December 3, 2009

 

Al Gore has just cancelled a high-profile appearance at the upcoming Copenhagen climate change conference only days after ‘ClimateGate’ revelations cast doubt on the legitimacy of the scientific ‘consensus’ ("hiding the decline" is not scientific in any respect). Just days ago, CRU director Phil Jones stepped down from his position at East Anglia University.

 

Further, Gore has been confronted by We Are Change and other groups at book signing events everywhere he goes– and apparently his only response to charges of fraud is to unleash his goons to drag out dissenters. Sounds like Eco-fascism to me. It’s easy to reach consensus when opponents are barred from the conversation (see video below).

 

Its Over Gore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, these goofs have no business interrupting a public gathering vs Al Gore, anymore than they have business doing the same

 

to Palin, or anybody else.

 

I find it intriguing that Gore ADMITS to the man made global warming movement as a political movement.

 

Some of us have been saying that for a long time. Now, not even Shep can come and say Gore is not using

 

it politically.

 

It's a fraud. A political fraud. A lot like Obamao's "Hope and Change". Just words to get votes from anybody they get get to buy into it.

 

Very sadly dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from the horses ass. It's great when we can say I TOLD YOU SO YOU SHEEP. Where is Ed Beagly when you need him. I know, he lying face down with his dick in a compost pile.

 

It's so f*cked up how the media spins this issue. Sure we want clean water and fish. Sure we want our family to breath cleaner air. And sure we want less dependency on foreign oil, I AGREE! But as soon as you don't agree that it is linked to Global Warming your a crazy conspiracy theorist.

 

I was reading an article (sorry no link) on how the extermination of Whales will have a bigger impact then greenhouse gasses on the climate. What the f*ck is Hore doing to curtail that?

 

Admits Emails are "Damaging", in other words, we lied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try it this way:

 

We know that CO2 molecules absorb/radiate heat, which is why CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". That's just basic physics.

 

We know that we can accurately measure the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, and do so all year round, from multiple sources. And we know that the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing every year. That's just a measurement.

 

We can also distinguish between CO2 in the atmosphere that's emitted from natural sources, and man-made CO2. That's just chemistry.

 

Knowing all this - that CO2 molecules radiate heat, that they already perform a greenhouse function in the atmosphere, and that we're increasing the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere every year - what do you think is going to happen to global temperatures over time?

 

And that's just CO2. Add in increased amounts of methane, whose molecules radiate eight times the heat of C02, the elimination of carbon sinks due to deforestation, feedback loops caused by the increased melting of the permafrost, feedback loops caused by the increased melting of the ice caps, etc.

 

If someone can explain away any of this, you can win a Nobel Prize. But you can't. It's just basic science.

 

Kosar, you should know better. Or maybe you shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's very stimulating in Puking Hard. Everyone patting each other on the back. I'm sure anyone with a different point of view would just be banned. The "Fairness Doctrine" site. It's not as busy over here because we don't have the clowns over here throwing insults at everyone. It is actually nice over here now. I enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, I will not pretend to be that thing you think I shouldn't be so that you might stumble on an attempt at an Obama joke. Aye-aye.

 

But thanks for reminding me not to bother. Just thought I'd see what was up in the fever swamp. Like a ghost town in here.

 

You're quite welcome Heck.

I fully understand.

AFAIK there's no political forum over at the new Valhalla and that's probably just as well.

From what I can tell it was built on the idea of banning anybody who liked the wrong players.

 

The political board, run under that mindset, would be like Bob's Country Bunker "We have both kinds of opinions here; left and far left."

 

But as the reality of the Obama presidency sinks in there's probably not much you can defend.

 

But hey, why bother?

When unemployment gets back to 4% the deficit disappears we all have top notch health care at an affordable price and they break ground for a hunndred new Walmarts in Afghanistan you can come back and gloat.

 

(plus you got to say "fever swamp" again! I'll see that and raise you a Kool Aid.)

 

WSS

 

ps tell me you aren't just a little bit embarrassed by the seeming fraud on your eco warrior side.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the pro gw scientists lament that they can't prove that gw is tied to CO2 increases...

 

algore says that gw is a political movement, and Heck shows up to

 

reiterate some stuff from moveonupgore'sleg.orgy?

 

Priceless.

 

I hope they are having fun playing verbal footsie with each other

 

over wherever they are.

 

May they always speak as one, in peace and harmony,

 

so we can ROF,LOAO....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in another arrogant and ignorant display of fraud:

 

Copenhagen climate summit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...iar-wedges.html

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international...yyvy19b0ZTHaGwO

 

1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...