From a Judicial watch press release
NASA Scientists Go on Attack After Climate Data Error Exposed
Contact Information: Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC — January 14, 2010
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.
These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century.
Email from Demian McLean, Bloomberg to Jim Hansen, August 14, 2007: “The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…”
Email Response from James Hansen to Damian McLean, August 14, 2007: “…We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”
Email from NASA Scientist Makiko Sato to James Hansen, August 14, 2007: “I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page…” (Email includes temperature chart dated January 1, 2007.)
(This issue also crops up in email communications with New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin a little over a week later.)
According to the NASA email, NASA’s incorrect temperature readings resulted from a “flaw” in a computer program used to update annual temperature data.
Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a “pest” and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.” Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.”
“This email traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA. Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data. Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest manner,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
=================================
Here’s a large package of emails from NASA GISS in one large PDF with 215 page which I’ve made available on the WUWT server which can handle the traffic this is likely to get.
783_NASA_docs (warning large PDF 11 MB)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not
All
Science
Agrees
“…Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest manner,”
Well, there’s the problem.
“Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.””
Not a very Scientific approach.
Using the same language as the Norwegian foreign minister used in Copenhagen. Very strange.
Why are they so hostile?
At least he doesn’t say f**k or s**t or d**n.
And late last year, 2006 jumped by 0.19ºC to become joint warmest year in the USA lower 48 series.
DaveE.
so in 1999 Hansen claims:
1934 – 1. 459
1998 – 0.918
but by 2007 he has “adjusted” the data to:
1934 – 1.227
1998 – 1.242
so he magically managed to adjust 1934 down 16% and 1998 up 35% … gee I think we’ve seen that game before …
I think the last earring Hansen had put in must have killed off his last remaining brain cells …
Judicial Watch has always been sort of a loose cannon. Their announcement isn’t going to send shivers down anyone’s spine.
Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions
Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884
Climate Progress was pushing some graph from James Hansen rather hard today. You mean it is laced with misinformation? George Zoros needs to watch his sock puppet site more closely.
Hanson’s comment tells us he is immature in his work attitude.
Eric (skeptic) (13:51:38) :
Judicial Watch has always been sort of a loose cannon. Their announcement isn’t going to send shivers down anyone’s spine.
—
But the emails will speak themselves will they not? They are not diminished in any way because of the credibility or lack thereof of the party that procured them.
there will be a press release explaining how the public can’t possibly understand all this scary-looking but totally innocuous “science talk.” mark my words.
Wow! So not only do they take my tax dollars and push for a result that lets them ask for and receive more, but then when someone catches them doing this, they call them names. Shame on you NASA…
It is simple. This hostility is defensiveness. Freud wrote of defense mechanisms. when proud people are exposed in error, they lash out. It is a natural reflex response . Joe Romm and James Hansen have almost identical maladaptive coping mechanisms.
A real Scientist would scratch their chin and just dig deeper.
Gosh, it seemed like a simple correction of a minor error at the time. Talk about thin-skinned!
“According to the NASA email, NASA’s incorrect temperature readings resulted from a “flaw” in a computer program used to update annual temperature data.”
OMG… not the Flaw!
Can someone please dumb this down for us?
The face of settled science surfaces…
And today we have:
“There will be a significant effort on the part of all in the administration to press forward,” [Todd Stern] said. “The president is focused on it, and the White House is focused on it.”
You know what they say about fools.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (13:33:44) :
Not
All
Science
Agrees
Not even from one year to the next. From the same data munger.
Al Gore, leading science denier, says the Earth is several million degrees-2 miles down.
It seems the warmists need to adjust some of their claims.
The same folks who think “Day of the Condor” and “JFK” are gospel because the government is behind all conspiracies apparently don’t have a problem believing every word NASA comes up with.
Re: Dr. Bob (Jan 14 14:06),
If we don’t stop burning fossil fuels now, the planet’s gonna burst into flames sometime in the next 100 years and we’re all gonna die. Trust us, we’re scientists.
It’s a pity to see what was once a vibrant and useful organization as NASA deteriorate down to it’s current level of embarrassment and malpractice. But then it’s to be expected in any organization that grows too old with fat cats, useless managers and pen pushers who have no scientific experience, and is becoming more and more like a political entity much like the UN. Sad but true. I expect China will replace the US in leading space research soon enough.
the hotter they claim it gets the more taxpayer money they get. Give me a million dollars and I’ll tell you it’s d**n hotter than hades and getting worse every year.
“andy (14:10:27) :
The same folks who think “Day of the Condor” and “JFK” are gospel because the government is behind all conspiracies apparently don’t have a problem believing every word NASA comes up with.”
We would love to, but their words change so often.
Email Response from James Hansen to Damien McLean, August 14, 2007: “…We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”
But if it is an insignificant hair between 1934 and 1998 then why all the fear mongering saying that recent warming is unprecedented? You can’t have it both ways James.