From The American Spectator: CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall
By Chris Horner on 5.27.10 @ 10:57AM
This morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is filing suit against NASA, calling the erstwhile space agency to account for its nearly three-year stonewall of access to internal documents exposing an abuse of taxpayer funds to advance the global warming agenda.
Along the way to this point, we have begun revealing how NASA is running a third-party advocacy website out of NASA facilities, at taxpayer expense, to assail “skeptics” and promote the highly suspect basis for a specific policy agenda.
This campaign also helped to elevate the particular fiefdom in question (James Hansen’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS) in terms of budget and stature. It has also elevated the scientists involved, professionally, at the expense of the taxpayer they are working to stick with the biggest economic intervention in our history (one I detail in my new book “Power Grab“).
In this process, if only thanks to pressure on NASA after a December 2009 news story about their games, we have already obtained important emails among 2,000 or so pages released. These include an admission to USA Today’s weather editor that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, using the temperature record of …CRU, the ClimateGate outfit. That means their “independent temperature record” is actually a recapitulation of one that …doesn’t exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data.
more at The American Spectator: CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall
Zeke says: HadCRUT, on the other hand, uses its own set of stations (including most stations in GHCN) for land temps, and uses HadSSTv2 for ocean temps.
The CRU crew have said their data is 90%+ identical with GHCN. GHCN is the bulk of all surface data in GIStemp (the USHCN is only used for the USA land area, and even that was left out from 2007 to November of 2009, then put back in after being recooked into a different version…). The sea temps are irrelevant as all they do is slather on a coating of the Hadley/CRU work (that we’ve already seen is broken).
So at the end of the day to say that GIStemp uses the same input at CRU is pretty much correct. The minor additions of some Antarctic data and the remixing of the US stations in GHCN with the US stations in USHCN don’t amount to a hill of beans. That’s why they could point at how much the ‘agree’ with each other…. Same “stuff” in, very similar “stuff” out.
Basically, GIStemp and HadCRUT differ in that GIStemp re-mixes the USA stations and HadCRUT re-mixes the UK stations (and maybe a few others) and both are substantially based on the GHCN that is based on ???… a hand picked set of biased records taylor made to show warming via locational bias and station changes over time. Baseline cherry picked to the cold side of the PDO cycle (so at most you can get back to ‘normal’ after 60 years, and no colder) and with colder stations in the baseline cold period (when their cold anomalies can be locked in) then replaced with warmer stations later (so no such cold anomaly can ever be found again… And no, GIStemp does NOT do anomaly of a thermometer compared to it’s own history. It computes anomalies based on one bucket of thermometers in the past compared to a different bucket in the present. Not really an “anomaly” in the proper sense at all. More like saying my car is getting newer over time because I owned an old one in high school and have a new one now…)
Basically, NOAA / NCDC, HadCRUT, and GIStemp all depend on the same biased and re-cooked data that is in GHCN. There is NO independence between them.
carrot eater says: As Zeke says, you can go to NOAA, get the raw data for yourself, and recreate GISTEMP for yourself.
That is flat out WRONG. (at best… I’m being polite.)
At NOAA you can get highly PROCESSED data food product, NOT raw data.
Their QA process changes the “data”. Oh, and notice that the “monthly means” used by GIStemp are a computed product, so by definition are not “raw”.
Then what GIStemp does to it is truly bizarre. I suppose one could recreate that, but it’s a piece of work.
BTW, NOAA / NCDC recognize this when they name the GHCN data “Unadjusted” rather than “raw”. It includes only some of their total cookage, not all of it, so the “Adjusted” version is even more out of touch with reality. But it is very important to remember that “UN-adjusted” is still adjusted, just not fully adjusted…
Zeke says: As far as checking how raw GHCN is, find a specific weather record that is adjusted in the non-raw version (say, Central Park in the early part of the century) and check its value in the unadjusted version.
That won’t work as a cross check. Most of the cooking comes in about 1990 or so in the “duplicate number three” batch of processing changes. So you need to compare “duplicate number three” with “really raw” to find the changes. (Note that for most stations, it’s the “3” mod flag, but for some with more changes, it can have a higher number.) I suspect it is an artificial “replace extreme values with ASOS / AWS compliant values” as is used on USHCN but have not had the time to chase it down to final details.
(In the USHCN QA process, any record that isn’t liked is tossed and replaced with an AVERAGE based on a collection of local ASOS / AWS stations (read airports). That is guaranteed to suppress low excursions. The GHCN data shows an artifact consistent with that type of processing.)
So, want to really help move truth along? Publish a link to a detailed description of the change in processing that began in the 1988-1993 range as the “duplicate number three” records began replacing the “duplicate number 0, 1, and 2” flags on new data.
I’ll take the resounding silence as confirmation that THAT is the key …
Chris:
Thanks for all your hard work and thanks to CEI for its steadfastness in supporting you. One suggestion however – lose the smirk when giving interviews. It does not make you more believable – just snarky.
Doug in Seattle,
To put it in perspective, take another look at Gavin in the article.☺
Zeke and Ron,
Thanks for the response and information. Ron is exactly right that I first became aware of any of this after climategate, so I have much to learn.
However, I have seen a number of statements from various sources (both science and media) indicating that there are multiple independent climate records, so we don’t need to worry if CRU’s data are suspect. Maybe that is the case, and I am glad you have patiently explained the fine points of these data sets, but I am not reassured when a well informed person such as yourself still must go through gymnastics and spot checks to know whether the data is raw or not.
Furthermore, when it is not raw, are the actual programs used to adjust the data and the reasons some data were adjusted but not not other data, available anywhere? I know the basic methods used to backfill grids, etc. have been published, but programs that do these things can have mistakes, and if the programs are not available, it is impossible to determine if there were mistakes. Also, without an explanation/justification for each data adjustment, we are really just taking someone’s word that it was done properly. It’s not that I think climate scientists are lying scoundrels, but this is just a poor way to operate. As I mentioned before, you couldn’t get a drug approved based on data that you state were adjusted but for which you can’t provide documentation and justification of the adjustment.
In most biological studies with large data sets (e.g., genomics and proteomics), any custom programs used to analyze them are provided as part of publications (usually as online supplements) and raw data are deposited in databases, so everything done can be reviewed, analyzed, and replicated. I had assumed climate data were handled similarly, so I accepted the alarming predictions of warming. I don’t anymore, and it’s not just because of the data issues, but that’s a topic for another post.
Anyway, I hope I have made my perspective clearer, and if I am wrong and there are detailed explanations of the adjustments of the major data sets readily available, my concerns about the reliability of the data would be eased considerably. However, if this information is not readily available, I would be interested to know whether you see this as a problem.
The difference between the datasets of the Hadley Centre and the Global Historical Climatology Network is the fact that Hadley maintained their climatology long before global warming was a hype, whereas GHCN was in their own wordsdesigned to be used to monitor and detect climate change. GISS remodels and gets even more warming, of course. When are they going to reconcile these surface models with the satellite measurements which show indicate less warming over the continents?
” DesertYote says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:15 am
NASA has a lot of explaining to do.
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/climateChanging/
Poor Polar Bear.
I don’t know why this stuff is not getting any more attention, but NASA deliberately telling our children lies is a big deal.”
–I posted comments about the nasa/kids propaganda last winter on several sites, but there seemed to be no interest. I guess ’cause it’s just for kids [but there is also an emphasis for the educators who are ‘educating our kids]
I think its gone now, but last winter one of the questions for kids was “Who is helping? People who live in little houses.”
I sent them feedback asking, “You mean people like Al Gore and James Hansen???”
A couple observations and maybe a question or two:
a) Sourcing things from Jeff Renses’s (a former Alex Jones associate) website (a veritable ‘conspiracy central’ site less than a decade ago) these days?
b) Can you make any references besides “House Concurrent Resolution 25” – to any US Codes or Code of Federal Regulation (CFRs)?
c) Where is the ‘regional’ office for the UN that oversees Texas? I’d like to pay them a visit …
These should be easy questions to answer if your posting isn’t the product of populist paranoic vamping.
(I see you even got a mention/reference to the anti-National Animal ID tagging website in there too; way to go girl!!)
.
I’ll take the resounding silence as confirmation that THAT is the key …
That is your MO, isn’t it? Whenever you bump into something that you don’t understand and don’t desire to learn, you use THAT something as the key to … to what? Afraid to say it? Prefer to rely on vague claims and insinuations?
Anyway, I did the leg work you so clearly chose not to do. Raise issues, claim misconduct, and walk away. Its so terribly predictable.
————————–
Publish a link to a detailed description of the change in processing that began in the 1988-1993 range as the “duplicate number three” records began replacing the “duplicate number 0, 1, and 2? flags on new data
As you know, when multiple data sources are available for a single station in GHCN, they are distinguished by separate record numbers. So the appearance of a new record number indicates a new data source.
There are roughly 1000 stations with a ‘record 3’. Lets see what the first year for ‘record 3’ is for various stations:
1951; 70 stations with a new record 3
1961: 190 stations with a new record 3
1971: 115 stations with a new record 3
1981: nope! pattern is broken. no new record 3
1987: 320 stations with a new record 3
1991: 17 stations with a new record 3
2000: 126 stations with a new record 3
full list here
So how is it that ‘new data sources’ are lining up at the beginning of decades (for 1951,1961,1971, 1991?, 2000). What happened to the 1981 update?
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/www/CBS/Meetings/MG_5/Doc-3-1(3).doc (DOC)
Your continued alarmism is noted.
http://www.epa.gov/region6/index.htm
_Jim,
That’s c)
Anyway, I hope I have made my perspective clearer, and if I am wrong and there are detailed explanations of the adjustments of the major data sets readily available, my concerns about the reliability of the data would be eased considerably. However, if this information is not readily available, I would be interested to know whether you see this as a problem.
There are few different methods of ‘replication’ in science.
Method 1: exact data and exact methods (equations, algorithms, code)
This is an audit. Nothing new is generated.
Method 2: exact data and independent methods
Method 3: independent data and exact methods
Method 2 is what a bunch of different blog guys are doing now by feeding GHCN unadj into their own global gridders and anomalizers. I’m working on Method 3.
Method 4: independent data and independent methods
I’m no historian of science, but this the way that I was taught that the physicals sciences have usually operated. And if a previous result couldn’t bolster an earlier finding – well that causes a ‘conflict’ which is resolved by further research, new approaches.
So to answer your question, I’m not particularly concerned by not achieving ‘Confirmation Method 1’ for historical weather data. While it may be technically possible to gather all the physical records, the paper records kept in libraries and shoe-boxes (some of which may have been destroyed over the years), the chance of gathering the exact same set of paper records and extracting the exact same set of data is exceedingly small.
So we can confirm GISTEMP and CRUTEM by feeding their data sources into independently constructed programs. And we use Method 3 (go to other similar data sources and run them through the public code for GISTEMP or CRUTEM). And we can use Method 4 and look at independent temperature records such as satellite records and paleo-proxies. And then we weight the evidence to see if GHCN+GISTEMP/CRUTEM should be considered confirmed or rejected.
Or we can rely on CEI to spin a politically-driven narrative.
I know which methods I prefer.
And GHCN is documented better than the WUWT experts let on:
Peterson and Vose, 1997 An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database
Peterson, T.C., R. Vose, R. Schmoyer, and V. Razuvaev, 1998: Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) quality control of monthly temperature data. International Journal of Climatology, 18 (11), 1169-1179. (PDF Version)
No self respecting man wears a scarf.
I hope they win the lawsuit.
Frankly I would just be happy if someone would do something to tape Hansen’s mouth to truly enforce his gag order that he’s been disobeying for the last 8 years.
The man constantly proves the old Chinese proverb…
Tis better to keep your mouth closed, and let people think you are a fool…. than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I see our friend Ed took his finance question/moan over to the American Spectator.
Ed, who is financing RealClimate.org? Who is financing Gavins time on the site? Why did they drop the time/date stamps?
Its a pointless, shrill attempt to try to prove the sceptical side is financed by “Big Money”. Sheesh! They say we sceptics follow conspiracy theory!
Make sure mine is in a brown envelope please Anthony 😉
I love it when People like Zeke and Carrot Eater swear by Jonesies temp data.
The man has as much as said he has crossed the line of his duty to faithfully keep accurate records and has changed from a friendly fellow scientist to someone who says now, Hell no I won’t give you the information you want, you’ll just used it against me… Damn the torpedos and the Freedom of information law (in Britain and the US mind you) and while I’m at it Damn You, and good day Sir. (emphasis and choice of words mine but it pretty much paints the picture correctly)
If you people really want to believe in the word of someone like Phile Jones and you really believe that there was a fair hearing in Britain that found him innocent of all mis-deeds… I have some guaranteed winning lottery tickets and ocean front property in Arizona with your name on it.
Phil Jones is exhonerated in Britain and Michael Mann is exhonerated by Penn State, there hasn’t been this much white paint going on fences since Ralph Maccio starred in the Karate Kid. Aiiii Painta Fence Daniel-San
Zeke
I always love those graphs. 0.6C in 130 years. No wonder I feel like a boiled egg!
By the way words of wisdom to people like Zeke and Carrot Eater… show a little respect to Mr. Watts and Mr. Sexton, these guys have more knowledge, wisdom, and class than most people in the AGW arena.
Don’t believe their side if you chose to blindly follow Phil Jones but unlike Jones, Mann et al. their science is not blind nor is it lacking a great deal of rock solid evidence behind it. That is your right. You two guys aren’t obnoxious like some but you seem to give credence and dead sea scroll truth to the words of James Hansen.
I’m conservative but in my opinion one of the few things Bush Jr. did before he handed over the keys to Obama was slap a gag order on one Mr. Hansen. The GISS has constantly mishandled data, published un-verified data and Mr. Hansen continues to violate a Presidential Gag Order which has not been lifted I might remind you.
regarding Alan Power’s comments.
Yes last year Mr. Gore spoke before dozens of high schools.
He told them on numerous occasions throughout his cultic speach… “Your parents aren’t as wise as you, they don’t know about this stuff.” Go home and tell your parents they are dumb when it comes to global warming and demand they get with it.
I wonder how he would like it if I went to his son that he mentions in his Global warming rhetoric, and told him. He Gore Jr. Your father is an idiot and doesn’t know what he’s talking about, tell him to put his head back on his shoulders and get his facts straight?
Not that I would ever speak ill of the former future president.
All hail Al Gore, the inventor of the internet.
Stephen Pruett
“Furthermore, when it is not raw, are the actual programs used to adjust the data and the reasons some data were adjusted but not not other data, available anywhere?”
Releasing programs that recreate the entire thing is only possible when the process is 100% automated. This is the case for GISS, and their code is available on their website (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/), and it’s been picked over and re-written for clarity here: http://clearclimatecode.org/about/
For the USHCN v2.0 (which is the current version), the code is also available, and it should be available for GHCN v3.0 when that comes out.
“and if the programs are not available, it is impossible to determine if there were mistakes.”
This isn’t at all true. You can figure out that somebody made a mistake without looking at their code. You do it by independently doing your own calculations, and seeing that your results don’t match. You can try to implement their methods (which are described in detail in a bunch of papers) or come up with your own methods. Both have been done in the past months by several people.
EM Smith
“At NOAA you can get highly PROCESSED data food product, NOT raw data.
Their QA process changes the “data”. Oh, and notice that the “monthly means” used by GIStemp are a computed product, so by definition are not “raw”.”
The GHCN QC process only changes the data in that outlier months are tossed out and moved into the QC file, where you can see exactly what’s been tossed out. They are not replaced with anything but the missing data flag.
But yes, monthly means are the result of somebody taking an average, so they’re only raw inasmuch as an average is raw.
“Then what GIStemp does to it is truly bizarre. I suppose one could recreate that, but it’s a piece of work.”
It’s been recreated, both by following the exact same method, as well as making various changes to the method. As for whether it is “truly bizarre”: I think you still might not understand the reference station method, as you’ve gotten it quite very wrong when you’ve worked out toy problems.
Pete,
pffffft. According to James Hoggan and others at desmogblog.com everyone who speaks out against the warmists are millionares sucking up funding from Exxon or the tobacco companies.
I wish that were the case…. I’m a poor 50 year old student who’s so broke I’m living in my mom’s house with my mom and my wife and kid and 7 cats. (not because i’m a loser but because i spent over 50k to move from Washington state for a job in Alaska then got laid off 6 months later because of our lovely economy, then had to spend another 7 k to move back to Washington and been unemployed going on 2 years now and I’m going to school). While Phil Jones and Michael Mann still get money from the US Government and the IPCC and other agencies. Let’s get serious, the US gov’t alone has spent over 1.8 trillion with a “t” dollars in the last 5 years on global warming studies. Where is the real conflict of interest here folks?
Anyone on the warmist side is welcome to check my checking account statement.
Granted I’m a nobody in the fight against Darth Gore and the global warming dark side but… skeptic I am none the less.
To answer the earlier question about CEI funding – here’s a document listing their larger sponsors: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=jot72e00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
Here’s a short list:
Amoco Foundation, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company.
CSX Corporation,
FMC Foundation
Ford Motor Company Fund
Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Precision Valve Corporation
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco Foundation
Is this a case of follow the money?
Poor Old Gav I met him in a knife fite once. Way back.
Hands in the till on the Company time, come November he is toast.
Naughty Naughty.
He is one nasty piece of work in my honest opinion. Can’t fite he will roll.