You can thank Chris Horner of CEI for making this happen.

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).
I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.
NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.
On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.
…
Regarding U.S. temperatures, Ruedy confessed to Hansen on August 23, 2007 to say:
I got a copy from a journalist in Brazil, we don’t save the data.
——————————————–
The Ruedy relationship with a Brazilian journalist raises the matter of the incestuous relationship between NASA’s GISS and like-minded environmental reporters. One can’t help but recall how, recently, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of glacier shrinkage in the Himalayas was discredited when found to be the work of a single speculative journalist at a popular magazine, and not strict peer-reviewed scientific data. The emails we obtained include several instances of very close ties and sympathetic relationships with journalists covering them.
…
In an August 15, 2007, email from Ruedy to Brazilian journalist Leticia Francisco Sorg, responding to Sorg’s request for Ruedy to say if warming is accelerating, Ruedy replied:
“To observe that the warming accelerates would take even longer observation times” than the past 25 years. In fact, it would take “another 50-100 years.”
This is a damning admission that NASA has been complicit in UN alarmism. This is not science. It is debunked advocacy. The impropriety of such policy advocacy, let alone allowing unsubstantial scientific claims to become part of a media campaign, is self-evident.
More here.
================
Climategate 2.0: The NASA Files
In August 2007, Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).
Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000.
The FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.
NASA stonewalled for more than two years.
Quietly — on New Year’s Eve 2009 — NASA finally provided the documents:
Read Christopher Horner’s analysis of the documents here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How is superman, er, umm, Gavin going to explain this?
Those guys at CEI are real bulldogs! Bravo….and keep at it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
And you see Andrew Revkin’s attempt at being objective, when he admits his amazement after digesting surfacestations.org., further thanks to the WUWT resident bulldog that bears this blog!
Keep on folks…their wall is tumbling. There is no weapon like the truth.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Wow.
The real question is: “How much longer can the main stream media continue to participate in the cover-up?”
Well done Steve but so XXXXX what the climate goes up and down….
hopefully this will die away because it certainly is taking us all a lot of our precious time wasted. I hope both warmistas and deniers realize this LOL
“jorgekafkazar (20:42:22) :
The real question is: “How much longer can the main stream media continue to participate in the cover-up?””
Just long enough for the “fix” to be installed, up and running and starting to channel money to the ruling elite.
Can anyone tell me how this set of NASA email correspondence is different from the set of NASA emails obtained by Judicial Watch, which have been explored by Steve McIntyre and others at ClimateAudit, WUWT and elsewhere?
“The journalists ate my data.”
“My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.”
So . . . not data.
Not models.
E-mails of internal discussions, hoping to find something embarrassing.
Good luck with your witch hunt. Meanwhile, science goes on.
So, does any of this data pertain to the raw temperature station data? If so, I’d be interested if any of it has been adjusted from the original readings.
BTW Anthony, I heard you yesterday on KFI and you were great. I wish you were on for an hour instead of a half hour.
As we say on the soccer field. Well Done Chris!
Thanks, Chris, Steve, Anthony et al for keeping the hot spotlight of public attention focused on the Climategate scandal and its roots in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and all the federal research agencies that NAS controls by virtue of budget review – NASA, DOE, etc.
There is still a lot of filth to be revealed, including the blatantly false information that NASA and DOE have promoted on the origin, chemical composition, and source of nuclear energy for the Sun – Earth’s ultimate source of heat.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0411255
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410460
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
They certainly had the space to store all their emails!!
Robert (21:08:30) :
Uh huh….and science does INDEED go on.
But its indiscretions not without notice from a few sharp attorneys.
The good thing is…is that a really good scientist….and a really REALLY good attorney….[OK….not all attorneys, LOL] are about the same thing: the TRUTH.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Thank you Chris Horner; It is clearer and clearer that this is a “robust” conspirisy of all 3 of the data base providers. There is no way that all of the operations are equally sloppy or incompitant. Oh yes, and they all lost the data? This is not climate science, this is a climate con.
Seeing Oliver’s comment reminds me that NASA have enough budget to (just recently) launch SDO, but they seemingly don’t have enough for space to store temp data?
I’m sure Oliver will be taking great interest in what data comes back from SDO 🙂
Robert (21:08:30) :
“E-mails of internal discussions, hoping to find something embarrassing.Good luck with your witch hunt. Meanwhile, science goes on.”
Great observation Robert!
Got any more of that?
And where’s your favorite science going on?
Very incriminating e-mails. They sure explain why gavin Schmidt was such a jerk on realclimate.
I like this guy ! He has stayed on the case and done a great job !
jorgekafkazar (20:42:22) : media?
Do you mean the national TV networks? In the USA?
The Wall Street Journal is covering “climate news”
almost every day with articles and opinion pieces.
These also appear on their web issue.
The WSJ isn’t MTV or CBS but it is an important
outlet for serious news in the US.
Today (Wed. Front page) they had a story of the
pull out of BP, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar
from the Climate Action Partnership.
I think it is fair to say the answer to your
question is that some parts of the media
are now in the uncover mode.
Not much of a “smoking gun” so far. All I see is a bunch of bureaucrats bungling a data base, probably with a bias toward that which rewards the institution. Why would anyone be surprised at that? Put some serious government funding on “global cooling” and those boys and girls will respond accordingly. The only mystery to me is why anyone should expect anything different from any organization with “funding sensitivities”, governmental or otherwise. Even the lucrative private consulting profession knows you can’t make a living telling them what they don’t want to hear.
Truth is an elusive butterfly that, fortunately for us all, has a life of its own.
It’s rather bizarre downloading this right off of NASA’s website!
Joanna Nova noted last week that the “dam wall” has been breached. This new scandal, with further FOI revelations in the pipeline, surely signals a full scale flood!
Having been an avid reader of WUWT since the early days, when any kind of scepticism was viewed with the same degree of scorn as being an advocate of DUI, I can only say that messrs Watts, MacIntyre, Monckton and a few others no doubt, deserve to be handed the nobel prize so erroneously awarded to the Goracle and his grant-grabbing accolytes.
It amazes me how quickly the mainstream media – at least in the UK and now, at last, here in Australia to some degree – have claimed the “Climategate / glaciergate” etc “scoops” as their own!
The truth is that blogs such as this, the excellent Andrew Bolt, SPPI, CA, jeff Id, Joanna Nova, Bishop Hill and the many others so many of us frequent, are actually a vanguard of a whole new source of information….free from the institutional “we know better” bias of the mainstream media, opinionated, searching, libertarian and downright dissident!!!
The fact that the mainstream media are now desperately playing “catch-up” is proof that the anarchic democracy of the weblog is now much more relevant than they are, and that they ignore it at their peril!
It’s a privilege to have been a spectator through such a momentous period in the history of science, the media and freedom of information……and I’m going to enjoy every second of the “endgame”!
““To observe that the warming accelerates would take even longer observation times” than the past 25 years. In fact, it would take “another 50-100 years.””
How is that statement alarmist or advocacy? Somebody asked if warming was accelerating, and he replied, no, you’d have to wait several more decades before you could observe acceleration. For the life of me, I can’t figure out how Horner is interpreting that statement to see alarmism or advocacy.