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.
Anyone else amazed at how fluid history appears to be in some circles? Its as if the historical record is written in pencil. Funny that.
James Hansen is a space alien. He was sent here to steal our precious supply of unobtainium, but he “went rogue” when he began to identify with the “dreadlocks and bong” tribe. Pass it on.
CH
what the world could use now is an inconvenient:
1) apology
2) oops
3) i admit it, it’s not settled
it’s ok to to change your mind. thinking people do it all the time.
history used to be written by the victor, not any more.
1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998
It really is amazing that it took a big El Nino spike in 1998 to come close to matching what was happening in the 30’s.
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.”
Mad scientist James Hansen.
I’ve made available on the WUWT server which can handle the traffic this is likely to get
Yes it will, especially if major news outlets direct people here, as they should.
To be fair, NASA is a large organization that does serious and good quality work in many areas. Climate change is not one of them. Nor should it ever have been. I believe the acronym is “Aeronautics and Space” administration. Not, the “Noble Authority on Simulated Atmospheres.”
Dr. Bob (14:06:17) :
Can someone please dumb this down for us?
Not as dumbly, perhaps, as certain scientists think that we, the great unwashed, need but I’ll give it a stab.
Catastrophic MMGW, to some, is an unfalsifiable certainty that must be accepted by all. They, like archbishop Usher with his peer-blessed nailing of the date of Creation, will defend their findings to the bitter end as if their careers and position depended on it!
The public, however, is fickle and do not always understand the intellectual leaps made by the priesthood. Some even confuse Weather with Climate in heretical ways by thinking that colder weather may be climate when only warmer weather is climate.
Wise men decided that, for the good of mankind, data that challenged the orthodoxy was evil and thus needed redemptive correction. Not Evil, Just Wrong.
Recent cold spells have made the headlines and caused many to question the certainty that AGW is actually happening. Some, quoting obscure acronyms like UHI and arcane statistical tricks, are even questioning that GW (sans the Anthropogenic bit) is actually happening at all!
When you believe that you are saving the World these exaggerations are a small price to pay. I have no issues with the zealots – they are unwell, misguided but sincere. It’s the rent-seeking hangers-on that I despise. They lie for profit alone and when they become the gatekeepers their lust becomes hideous.
The manipulation of data preserves their position. Is that dumbed down OK, Dr Bob?
So Hansen thinks McIntyre is a pest.
Nixon thought Woodward and Bernstein were pests too!
August 10 2007, email from Hansen. Cracker. Suggests saving data at least once a year so they have a record.
“tarpon (14:07:04) :
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.””
I think the Obama administration needs glasses… obviously they can’t focus properly.
These so called climatologists don’t deserve to be called scientists. They are so sloppy with their data that if they were accountants, their corporations would have gone bankrupt long ago and we wouldn’t have any problems with their fraudulant behaviour, at least not on the scientific side.
If I was a US citizen and I wanted a cultural change at NASA I’d write to my congressman demanding that NASA’s budget be cut then write to NASA and explain that the manipulation with US/Global temp data evident at GISS is why I’ve taken the action I have. Nothing talks like money.
In fact this might be a good idea to apply to our own CSIRO and BOM.
Cheers
Michael
Steve McIntyre (14:51:23) :
In 2007, on the 1934-1998 issue: I agreed that Hansen had been for 1934, before he was against it.
That sounds like john Kerry politics: I voted for it before I voted against it.
Look, because we’re “climate scientists” and far more intelligent than you – there is no need for us to admit we were wrong. We are evolved, proud professionals. If ever you are able to reach the heights we have achieved – you then may criticize.
Please fetch me a glass of water.
Obviously I believe that 1934 was warmer than 1998 (click my name, I run a skeptic blog.)
What I don’t understand is this: How do we reconcile that 1934 was warmer than 1998 with our current temperature graphs? For instance, this from the HadCRUT3 data set:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl
Clearly shows that 1998 was 0.2’C or so warmer than 1934. Is this due to all of the adjustments? Would a more accurate graph show a peak in 1934, then the 40 year cooling period, then a rise in temperatures to the same amplitude as the 1934 peak?
Thank you for any guidance.
It appears August, 2007, was a very hot month for the
NASA/GISS/NOAA/etc. folks.
However, none of this activity was the result of a FOIA request.
The request was “granted” a long time after August, 2007, and
involved efforts by the FOIA personnel and the IT folks at the
responding agencies.
Other than researchers’ collective consternation at having their
e-mails opened to public scrutiny, none of their precious time
was expended in satisfying the Judicial Watch request.
Wow. A systemic/systematic error = a “flaw”.
Asking several times for data and a program (with some of the
requests kept out of sight from other group members) earns you
the dreaded “desperate character” designation.
Anthony – can someone make up “Wanted” posters with SteveMc
and your pictures ? The “Team” would buy them for dart practice
and the rest of us for posting on our walls just above our monitors.
Hmmm looks like two of us are using the same handle with only a difference in capitalization. That could be confusing
Larry
It looks like the climate gate disclosure may have some long term beneficial impacts, and will not only not fade away, but will turn over other rocks as various groups and individuals investigate things of interest.
Larry
That is one fast server you have. Normally a download of that size takes a couple of minutes or more depending on how a site is throttled. I got it in about 30 seconds.
Thanks for the quick reply, Anthony. I should have guessed the misspelling lay with the source material; I messaged Judicial Watch.
If you get a min, the second mention of “Demian” is still wrong in your post:-)
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.”
What evidence do you have and/or rely upon to justify the “loose cannon” label for Judicial Watch? Use of this unsupported “kill the messenger” crap suggests that your user ID should be Eric the idiot.
As usual, our “objective” correspondent Mr. Andy Revkin at The New York Times is as thick as thieves with the climate gang over at NASA. What an absolute disgrace.
Climategate++
This “Reto Ruedy” character is so obnoxious that he might be thought of as the GISS equivalent of Michael Mann or Ben Santer.
Richard deSousa (15:47:06) :
“tarpon (14:07:04) :
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.””
I think the Obama administration needs glasses… obviously they can’t focus properly.
=========
make no mistake, they are focused on it.
but are cautious about which horse to bet.
Hansen gave an oddly prescient interview to the Independent in 2007:
“Many of them will be in trouble. They will effectively be pushed off the planet,” Dr Hansen said.