UPDATED: related FOIA documents are now posted at the end of this story.
Posted on the American Spectator:
“Climate Gate” Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
By Chris Horner on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM
Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA’s failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
– internal discussions about NASA’s quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);
– internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);
– those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.
This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.
RELATED DOCUMENTS (PDF)
Hansen GISS Correction FOI Request
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 640-822 questions and 642-642 test demos for practice and pass your 640-863 exam on first attempt.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
George (09:43:52) :
“What is there to prove with Gavin. Just a quick look at the time stamp of his blog entries shows that he edits realclimate on the tax payer dime.”
If this is true, this can be quite serious. The government is very particular about logging time appropriately. I know from my own experience in the aerospace industry that the government requires contractors (and I would imagine all civil servants) to record their hours on a daily basis, and to have appropriate charge codes.
In all of the ClimateGate discussions, the catastrophists/alarmists keep going back to the same tautology – that this information has to do with “real science” and that only “real scientists” need to have access to it and that people who have not peen consistently published in “peer reviewed journals” aren’t real scientists but are, instead, oil industry hacks up to no good. So the cause is too moral and too important to release data and methods to anyone who is will “twist the data” and “misrepresent the science.”
I am a luke warmer who absolutely sick and tired of this tautological charade.
There is NOTHING to fear from full disclosure and fully disclosed and transparent research.
Anyone who claims otherwise should defend the proposition that s/he is pro-science.
If the data/methods are misrepresented then “the real scientists” can easily demonstrate the flaws that make up the misrepresentations.
If there is an issue of intellectual property, then where do these moralists get off in saying that we MUST use every resource to combat AGW except some insider’s intellectual property? Where is the higher moral purpose in that?
Defending corruption on the basis that the accusers are more corrupt (or that the corruption serves a higher purpose) isn’t science. It is politics. And crappy politics at that.
Seriously though, Senator Inhofe needs to push this issue forcefully to pressure GISS to release the files and data. I’m not sure how successfully one can sue a government agency. This may require a back channel process or threats of further funding cuts for NASA. Don’t know how much influence he has in the current Congress. It’s interesting how Hansen has seemed stay under the radar in this scandal despite being a major player in AGW.
Russia Today covering this in English
http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday
FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh bloviate over all of this is no help.
It doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science.
Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.
The NYT had best get on this soon, or they are going to lok even worse than usual.
Richard Heg (09:32:52) :
Speaking from a non-legal view, I’m betting no. But, Phil Jones, et al have admitted the e-mails are legit, so a subpeona would probably be issued to legally get the information. Then you can have a “chain of custody” for the evidence to be used in court.
DD More,
That is amazing.
I am sure it may have started in good faith, but it has become a secretive unregulated pipeline to feed enviro extremists.
is Obama’s arrogant speech at MIT, talking about ‘marginalizing’ skeptics starting to look a bit like a sweet irony, or what?
astateofdenmark (09:33:44) :
“I can hear the shredders.
Or, report on evening news, “substantial sustained unexplained surge in electric power usage in the Hadley area”
You need to cancel your Google Ads. They run counter to what I always thought this site stood for. They are alarmism at its worst.
Apparently here in the UK illegally withholding an FOI request and/or destroying the evidence is only punishable with a fine. However I thought that conspiring with others to commit a crime is itself a jailing offence. Any lawyers out there who know the answer?
Many academic journals now require the data used in papers be posted online in a data repository so that others can analyze the data independently. For one example, see:
http://www.econ.queensu.ca/jae/
The need for an independent analysis of climate data is especially acute since the CRU data dump has shown that the standards of software engineering, data processing, and data analysis at CRU are highly questionable, at best. See:
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-harry_read_me-file/
That both CRU and GISS are refusing to release data even after Freedom of Information requests are filed shows what kind of “scientists” and people we are dealing with.
I do not understand how we can call it “science” if it is not verifiable. If all data, code, methodology, and so forth is not available to the public domain in real time — how can any of this expensive work be trusted for anything? They should be sued to force open and transparent sharing of all public data.
Rush is into this topic his second hour. Rush is in the I told you so mode. He really is not vindictive like Michael Mann and others that are stonewalling data to people they despise.
He mentioned GE and its begging for money for it’s green energy endeavors.
“Liberals have to lie” to get what they have for an agenda he says.
He also mentioned why Algore keeps the press out of his lectures. They can record things that may be fact checked or backfire.
He also quoted Obama’s promise to restore dignity to science. (I don’t think this is what Obama had in mind)
This is great! It has always been my opinion that these people need to be sued into oblivion. Gore, Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, etc. all need to be pummelled with massive lawsuits. If their actions resulted in more headache than triumph we could get this whole AGW joke-ship to come to a grinding halt. And if some of these “faux-scientists” knew their studies would be scutinized by attorneys for damages, they would not be so likely to gin their fibs. This could be the first of many such attacks. WE are many and our attack could be fierce. BTW, thanks WUWT for years of stimulating education!
Sorry to mention this again, but has anyone read this particular e-mail?
I was searchin at anelegantchaos.org and found this:
Thursday, 27 March 2003 15:05:07 : Filename: 1048799107.txt
Does anyone know what this Earth Government is? And why were they reading their newsletter?
YES!!
(my first reaction)
This situation reminds me a bit of the Bre-X scandal. I for one will be getting out not only the popcorn but the cheesies as well.
Perhaps the climate “industry” needs something akin to the JORC Code for the reporting of research?
These headers are from Drudge Report:
Which one jumps out?
Climategate: ‘Greatest scandal in modern science’…
Call for Congressional investigation…
Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers…
Obama: ‘Step closer’ to climate deal…
Do you also hear the sound of ratings heading south?
I just had a thought – I have them from time to time – has anyone heard from John Coleman regarding the AGW movement’s meltdown?
Rush Limbaugh is going nuclear on Climategate.
According to Limbaugh: There are two worlds: The far-left world of lies and the other world where people try and find the truth.
There are four corners: Science, academia, media, and government.
All are in the lying world.
How many listeners does Limbaugh have?
And this isn’t a passing segment: Limbaugh is hammering it.
Put it this way, if mainstream media continues to ignore the story, their credibility maybe irreparably harmed.
Because it just isn’t Limbaugh, all talk-radio is abuzz, expect O’ Reilly to do a TV segment and the pressure on the mainstream media will only intensify.
Call your senator today and demand an investigation.
Hey, when the science is “settled,” you don’t want someone coming along and “unsettling” it.
I’m sure the NASA data servers are heating up right about now.
I agree that relying on Fox, Limbaugh etc. is not going to help – all a bit shrill and easily knocked down. No – we need lawmakers on both sides of the pond to start kicking up a fuss. Lawson in the UK has started the ball rolling (ok – he’s an ex-lawmaker, but you get the idea)
Where are the conservative congressmen and senators? – a few calls for committee enquiry might force the MSM to wake up – no?
@ur momisugly Richard Henry Lee (09:18:55) :
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately I don’t recall details, but I’ve run across several articles discussing how, since Obama took office and issued that memorandum, various Obama Admin depts/branches have already behaved in exactly the opposite fashion — including, I believe, the White House itself. The WH rhetoric is downright Orwellian and seems to typically be diametrically opposed to what is actually done.
Transparency in this Admin is an utter joke. Its either stonewall, stonewall, stonewall (with tons of verbal rationalizations and excuses), or release bogus information like on recovery.gov where 6.4 Billion dollars of ‘stimulus’ money has gone to a ton of non-existent congressional districts around the nation. Including D.C. which has NO congressional districts. Not to mention all of the reported fraudulent “jobs created or saved” that have been and are being discovered.