NASA Part of Climategate?

3 12 2009

Design by bkeyser

RESEARCHER: NASA HIDING CLIMATE DATA

By Stephen Dinan – Dec 3, 2009 – http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

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.

~Submitted by Eowyn

Advertisements

Actions

Information

7 responses

3 12 2009
giovanniworld

I was wondering how long it would take before NASA was called-out. I’m ecstatic over this news!!! Gavin Schmidt from http://www.realclimate.org/ is one of those that has consistently wiped the rear-end of his boss Hansen over at NASA. I wonder how he will handle this bit of TRUTH!?

Gio-

3 12 2009
giovanniworld

Why do I bother? Those people have decided that the lie must be defended and that’s that. Here’s the first comment I came to concerning the hacked CRU…

263Silk says:
3 December 2009 at 6:20 PM
#244

The science is sufficiently ’settled’ for us to act. (Not that I’m accusing you of denying that)

The threat is there. We ‘know’ it’s real. We certainly know a lot less about the impacts but what we do know suggests that they are very bad. We know it costs less to avoid the problem now than try to fix it later (Stern Review).

We also know (see latest IEA reports) that our current use of energy is unsustainable in a shorter period of time than the climate problem (peak oil in two decades or less?! Yikes!!)…..
**********************

Hopeless!

Gio-

3 12 2009
giovanniworld

Sorry for messing-up this post. I just ran across the biggest snot-nosed-know-it-all-POS over at Real Climate. (their name is a joke) Read this comment and then rate on a scale of 1-10 as to how big an asshole this guy is..

256Amory B. Lovins says:
3 December 2009 at 6:00 PM
What I get from the stolen-emails controversy so far is:

– Some opponents of climate protection not only lie and cheat but also steal.
– A well-funded and -planned campaign of climate disinformation continues both to distort and deny climate science and to try to discredit the scientific process.
– Many reporters and editors remain ill-informed about climate-science fundamentals and about how science works.
– Robust discussions are a vital tool for sorting truth from error.
– Peer review is not an infallible error-detector, but beats none.
– Some people, including some scientists, can be untactful and indiscreet, especially in communications they think are private. These human traits are unrelated to the merits of their views.
– Ambiguities can easily be taken out of context and out of proportion to reverse their intended meaning. A skilled effort devoted to this deception now threatens scientific and policy leaders with political harm for frank expression. They may learn greater care and discretion in their choice of words, but their public duty demands not less but even more clarity, candor, and transparency. Efforts to intimidate through falsehood, like the current media circus over the stolen e-mails, continue to merit merit exposure and contempt.

None of this is new. In time it will pass, and climate science may well be the stronger for it. As we learn more about who stole and published the emails at this sensitive time, how, and why, climate protection too may benefit from greater insight into the manufactured-doubt industry.

What seems to be missing from this conversation, though, is an appreciation of why this flap doesn’t matter: not only because climate science rests on such numerous, diverse, and independent lines of evidence and inference that its findings remain highly robust, but also because *whether you believe climate change is real and threatening or not, we should do the same things anyway just to save money (because saving fuel is cheaper than buying fuel, and productive forests are worth more than dead logs) and to improve our security.*

In other words, what you do about energy shouldn’t depend on your opinion about climate science, nor about whether you most care about prosperity, security, or environment. If the public debate about climate focuses on outcomes, not motives, it can reach broad consensus. And if in Copenhagen we start to correct a pernicious sign error—assuming from economic theory that climate protection is costly, rather than learning from business experience that it’s profitable (see http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C05-05_MoreProfitLessCarbon)—then we can shift the conversation from cost, burden, and sacrifice to profits, jobs, and competitive advantage. This sweetens the politics enough to melt any remaining resistance faster than the glaciers.

I hope more climatologists will add this concept to their normal remarks about climate science. The science was and remains clear, but for other compelling reasons, we should do the same things even if it weren’t.
**********

I give em’ an 11.

Gio-

3 12 2009
giovanniworld

In case you are wondering… this guy blames the hacker for the controversy, not the manipulated data.

Gio-

3 12 2009
Eowyn

It’s called shoot the messenger!

3 12 2009
Eowyn

– Many reporters and editors remain ill-in1formed about climate-science fundamentals and about how science works.

Yeah, I too know how science IS SUPPOSED to work:

1. Real scientists don’t dump their raw data as CRU had done. Without the raw data, how can other scientists evaluate CRU’s “extrapolation” (interpretation & massaging of the data)?

2. Real scientists don’t suppress contradictory evidence, but rather let the evidence speaks for itself.

3. Real scientists don’t blackball other scientists for disagreeing with them.

3 12 2009
giovanniworld

Amen Sister!

Gio-

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: