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.
@RockyRoad
Too bad their analysis is flawed. Little to rise in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) does not debunk GW. Look at it like this – from all indications surface temperatures have gone up since 1970. CO2 has also increased since 1970. So if surface temperatures have increased (leading to an increase in OLR), and CO2 has increased (leading to more OLR absorption), then it might be possible that the increase of CO2 absorption has balanced with the increase in surface OLR emission.
Leif Svalgaard (06:53:10) :
Mike Ramsey (03:41:07) : If we never challenged existing dogma we would never learn anything new. There is a big difference between dogma and a good scientific theory. The latter is good because of its explanatory power, but is always susceptible to improvement, as SDO will undoubtedly bring.
Can’t argue with that. I too am looking forward to what SDO discovers.
Mike Ramsey
Never thought this was going to reach such extremes as some posts here. It is a real “apocalypse” (a revelation, enlightment) happening just here in WUWT. Wow!
Robert:
Since when is it science to finagle the data and not show your work? I would have been drummed out of my graduate program for anything half this egregious. What these scientists appear to have done is SO unscientific and unethical, and that is why I am so upset. (probably everybody else too, but I won’t speak for them.)
Quote: JonesII (07:36:47) : Just to underline these words:
Oliver K. Manuel (21:11:10) :
….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.,
If revealed this will be a big step ahead for humanity.
– – – – – – – –
Thanks for the reminder, JonesII. You are exactly right.
To be more specific in the charges:
NASA continued to misrepresent the Sun as a ball of Hydrogen – the lightest element – after lunar samples showed that mass fractionation selectively moves lightweight elements and isotopes to the solar surface and into the solar wind:
a) Composition of Sun’s “surface”: http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
b) Mass separation observed in lunar samples:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
DOE helped to deceive the public by claiming that:
a) Solar neutrinos oscillate away, thus confirming NASA’s claim that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen:
One hundred and seventy-eight (178) authors, “Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011301
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i1/e011301
Two (2) authors, “Is there a deficit of solar neutrinos?”, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations, Istituto Veneto di Scienze ed Arti, Venice, Italy.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410460v1
b) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive although nuclear rest mass data clearly showed repulsive interactions between neutrons in all nuclei with two or more neutrons:
“Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (December 2001) pages 197-201
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm
That is some of the filth that I personally observed in NASA’s and DOE’s portions of the present Climategate scandal.
Underlying the entire structure is an unholy alliance of politicians with the National Academy of Sciences – the agency that reviews budgets of various research agencies for Congress – to save the world from the foolishness of ordinary, tax-paying citizens.
With deep regret,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Former NASA PI for Apollo
From: r[email separator]shaw.ca
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug zu0/ 09:34:53 -0700
> To: Leslie.M.McCarthy[email separator]nasa.gov
> Subject: GISS – Truth driven vs agenda driven
Page 1 of 3
> Dear Leslie,
> My fellow Canadians have unveiled another Global warming scam
> yours!
Now that we know Mr. Hansen used incorrect data or procedures in
determining the “hottest years”, concluding that the top 5 warmest
years since the 1890s are : 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006.
> Yet, there on your website
> (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/researchinews/20070208/) is the information
> still
> making what is now known to be a bogus claim.
Yes we are at a tipping point all right. And the truth is spilling all
over your pro-AGW agenda.
Leif Svalgaard (06:53:10) to Oliver K. Manuel (04:09:05) :
“I’m sure that Hathaway and NASA and just about everybody else still categorize your work as crackpottery.”
Keep repeating that to yourself, Leif, and hope that your friends in high places will be able persuade the public.
One of us is definitely an excellent example of a bad example of science.
I am convinced that all of the influence of NAS, NASA and DOE cannot bend the truth forever, Leif, so let’s let history decide who.
That was the approach that the late Professor Glenn Seaborg and I took at the end of the 20th century in organizing a symposium on the “Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations”.
We assembled a blend of highly respected experimentalists and theorists from astronomy, geology, meteoritics, planetology and nuclear chemistry and physics to discuss the origin of elements in the solar system.
We tried to include all points of view and let history judge their validity.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
carrot eater (07:34:04) :
Dear carrot eater,
I think the point you are missing (& I cannot see why that is just yet) is that NASA (Hansen) have been complicit in ratchet reporting, failing to challange alarmist claims about AGW in the msm where they have been misquoted or exaggeration has taken place, just as the Met Office & other organisations have done & still do, when they should be referring to what the science is allegedly telling us in a calm, scientific, considered way without resorting to scare stories. Any scientific body that lets alarmism run riot in the msm without due challenge to stick to actual science is complicit, simple as that. The hypocracy, is that NASA et al has & is alarmist in may ways on the one hand whilst at the same time claiming that alarmism is not good for the scientific debate on AGW, whatever that might be.
Steve Keohane (05:04:23) :
4-5 PDO cycles would be great. Which is why the back end of the the current USHCN is vital. We had a good enough run at it until the holders of the data ‘lost’ critical portions of it.
Alan the Brit (10:13:25) :
How can you say all that, when the example at hand is inconsistent with all that?
A journalist wanted to know if it’d be correct to say global warming is now accelerating, and GISS told them, no, you can’t say that because it isn’t.
This is an example of the person at GISS doing the right thing. So why is it being highlighted as a bad thing?
rbateman (10:22:34) :
Precisely what USHCN has been lost?
Ugh. Meant to say, precisely what USHCN data has been lost?
Horner looks further into the NASA emails, and finds stunning examples of politicized science and institutional hypocrisy. (This is Part Two of a four-part series.
Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part Two):
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true
Oliver K. Manuel (09:25:37) :
We tried to include all points of view and let history judge their validity.
It is clear that history has already rendered that verdict.
Matt (07:45:30) :
@RockyRoad
Too bad their analysis is flawed. Little to rise in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) does not debunk GW. Look at it like this – from all indications surface temperatures have gone up since 1970. CO2 has also increased since 1970. So if surface temperatures have increased (leading to an increase in OLR), and CO2 has increased (leading to more OLR absorption), then it might be possible that the increase of CO2 absorption has balanced with the increase in surface OLR emission.
———–
Reply:
You might be onto something. I was hoping you’d say something like “analysis is flawed” because that opens up the whole CO2-absorption mythology.
Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of adsorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulder of the absorption peaks. The difference due to height is that the adsorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth’s surface, the adsorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.
Pretending that radiation goes through the atmosphere at wavelengths absorbed by CO2 is the most basic fraud of climate alarmists.
For more, see: http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
Not everything is bad news. Here, an image by NASA, of Andromeda in the infrarred:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/427020main_pia12832-c.jpg
It is not clear who the author of this piece is. You could try something like by Author. In periodical publishing these are called bylines.
Oliver K. Manuel,
I have it on the very highest authority that the sun’s not yellow. It’s chicken.
I assume Steve M is already all over this.
Are all methods of processing the raw data since 1988 part of this?
@M. Simon (15:24:47) :
“It is not clear who the author of this piece is. You could try something like by Author. In periodical publishing these are called bylines.”
Well, this is a blog not a mag and the link given takes you to the original source by Chris Horner, who’s credited right at the beginning here too.
Oliver K. Manuel (09:25:37) :
Leif Svalgaard (06:53:10) wrt Oliver K. Manuel (04:09:05) :
>>>
Dr. Svalgaard – i’m sorry to have to say this, but I find some of your comments herein to be over the line and not professional. I’ve run into this a bit with you and can only say that a little humility might be in order…
JonesII (11:08:36) :
Not everything is bad news. Here, an image by NASA, of Andromeda in the infrarred:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/427020main_pia12832-c.jpg
Nice, but I kinda had to strain to see it.
I bet the guys at CRU are breathing a sigh of relief as the spotlight moves across the pond.
Do not feel left out Prof Jones etc, your not out of the woods yet.
What I have trouble with is Hansen/Gavin/ GISS, used to emphasized U.S. temperatures all along ranking individual years.
The emails then show them suddenly saying the exercise was simply not worthwhile when the numbers contradicted it (to much “noise) !
Must have been the noise of S.M./A.W and the C.E.I knocking on the door!
Keep up the great work you guys.
carrot eater (00:47:40) :
I see you bookmarked the Gilestro thread as a talking point. Perhaps you can comment on this statement he made, since as best as I can recall, neither he nor his fans ever admitted there might be a problem with it.