While cap and trade dies, NASA GISS gets a congressional amendment

Amendment to NASA Bill Seeks to Ensure Climate Data Integrity after Climategate

Washington, D.C. –The House Science and Technology Committee today required NASA to provide more details on how much of its temperature record overlaps with data collected from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the research body at the center of the ongoing Climategate scandal.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sponsor of the amendment to NASA authorization legislation (HR 5781), said the measure is needed to ensure the integrity of the agency’s temperature data following the scandal.

“Climategate revealed a pattern of suppression, manipulation and obstruction that pushed climate science towards predetermined outcomes in order to promote hysteria and, in my opinion, justify a heavy-handed regulatory response,” said Sensenbrenner, ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

“I think it is important that we clear the air on whether NASA records ended up being polluted as a result of the scandal.”

The amendment requires NASA to report to Congress on “the extent and degree to which NASA’s temperature records overlap with the records at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the reasons for and sources of that overlap, and the possibility that NASA’s temperature records have been compromised.” It was approved by voice vote.

The Climategate scandal centered on 160 megabits of data containing over 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 other documents from the CRU, which is based in the U.K. Many of the e-mails and other documents raised questions about the integrity and accuracy of CRU’s climate data, which is one of three major climate databases and was extensively in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that advocated higher energy taxes and regulations to address global warming.

In one e-mail, a research talked of a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperature data. Another e-mail shows a researcher seeking to sidestep freedom of information request and avoid fairly disclosing their government-funded data. In another example, a researcher lamented on his need to balance the needs of science and the politically-motivated IPCC.

“The scandal was not confined to the one British university, as it is widely-acknowledged that there is substantial overlap between the CRU’s temperature records and the temperature records at NASA.  Therefore, if CRU’s records are suspect, NASA’s might very well be too,” Sensenbrenner said.

====================================================

The amendment is attached:

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SENSENBRENNER OF WISCONSIN

Page 9, after line 11, insert the following new paragraph:

NASA’s temperature records substantially overlap with the records of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Page 62, after line 20, insert the following new section:

SEC. 304. REPORT ON TEMPERATURE RECORDS.

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a report to Congress detailing the extent and degree to which NASA’s temperature records overlap with the records at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the reasons for and sources of that overlap, and the possibility that NASA’s temperature records have been compromised.

# # #

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
54 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Jankowski
July 22, 2010 5:17 pm

Oh we already know the answer…it’s all “independently verified.” Case closed.

July 22, 2010 5:31 pm

He should just ask Willis or Steve M instead, would be much less work :-p
http://www.climateaudit.info/data/station/cru/cru.info.dat
My napkin math suggests stations also in CRU make up 85-90% of stations used by GISTemp, with the majority of the difference due to the ~800 stations in USHCN not included in GHCN that GISTemp makes use of.

mpaul
July 22, 2010 5:39 pm

I’m afraid that this is written in such vague language that the Team will simply put up smoke and mirrors. What temperature records are they talking about? What does ‘overlap’ mean? Its all very vague. SMc could have come up with much better language if consulted.

Andrew30
July 22, 2010 5:44 pm

They know that they have been deceived, now they are looking for scapegoats.

Geoff Sherrington
July 22, 2010 5:50 pm

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, thank you for initiative. Should you perchance read this, please ask Mr Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org if he is willing to give of his time, as he is expert in the field. Also, please keep in mind that the sets of global data in common use might already have been pre-adjusted by donor countries, so that part (a) of the exercise might be to see how USA agrees with other complilers, but part (b) might investigate the very origins of the raw data. It is easy to make lists seem alike if they are pre-adjusted by mutual agreement between parties.

John from CA
July 22, 2010 5:56 pm

I just finished reading the Wegmen Report which is available online.
Recommendation 2 (p. 51) ends with “But data collected under federal support should be made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do routinely.)”
Why would NASA use IPCC temperature data? Isn’t it the other way around?

July 22, 2010 5:57 pm

The real question is whether this will affect NASA’s primary goal: to help Muslim nations “feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.”

Jimbo
July 22, 2010 5:58 pm

“While cap and trade dies….”
It was always going to be an utter waste of time.
China ‘leapfrogs US to become biggest energy user’
In the meantime the cold hard reality of dead penguins washed up on the shores of Brazil might start to ring some bells.

Graeme W
July 22, 2010 6:02 pm

Being only slightly sarcastic, I think the response will be:
We are unable to determine the degree of overlap, as CRU will not disclose the details of their temperature database.

July 22, 2010 6:03 pm

The point Steve McIntyre’s been making recently will probably move to the fore, now. Though there is source data overlap, it’s the arbitrary adjustment on that data which is the issue. Steve has said that he doesn’t suspect CRU of maladjustment, he suspects CRU of NON-adjustment (eg. failure to adjust for UHI). GISS’s erroneous adjustments – adjusting temperatures UP for UHI, shaping the sample network purposefully to create upward trends and so on – are, AFAIK, independent of CRU’s non-adjustments on the same source data.
So probably nothing good or of benefit will come from this assessment, since the overlap of temperature record data with the CRU is not in fact the core scientific problem.
On the bright side, it’s clear that the Oxburgh, Parliamentary and Russell enquiries have not had the soothing effect that they’d set out to deliver. Questions remain and red flags are waving, as evidenced by the easy passage of this hand-vote, and this itself is good for the science – or terminal for the science, depending on how you set your jaw. Anything that creates reasonable doubt about climate science, and which might ultimately result in the introduction of SOME standards of integrity and adherence to the scientific method, can only be good for everyone in the long run.

Tom T
July 22, 2010 6:22 pm

Since NASA has admitted that CRU date is probably better is the overlap a moot point?

Rattus Norvegicus
July 22, 2010 6:40 pm

Zeke,
My question is just what difference does that make? The data that GISS uses is not collected or processed by CRU. So whatever CRU does with the data once it gets it from GHCN does not have anything to do with what GISS does with the same data. But I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that your numbers are right.

Henry chance
July 22, 2010 6:40 pm

Will NASA work on this item before ramping up their Muslim outreach?
“feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.”

trbixler
July 22, 2010 6:59 pm

Maybe a standard for the data? location ID and alias, Raw value type of instrument comment flags datetime stamp,adjustment value flags and reason datetime stamp.
Each data set datatime stamp revision number and by whom for reason why. Online archive.

johneb
July 22, 2010 7:14 pm

For some laughs, check out the comments at the DailyKos (re: climate bill crash & burn).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/22/886645/-Democrats-abandon-comprehensive-energy-and-climate-reform

Pamela Gray
July 22, 2010 7:33 pm

Republicans have a tendency to play the game as well as Democrats. What bill is this amendment in? Can we stomach that bill?

jt
July 22, 2010 7:35 pm

[snip, no f words, even disguised ones ~mod]

Mike Davis
July 22, 2010 7:41 pm

This resolution is focused to narrowly to be of any value. NASA GISS and CRU use GHCN data so they come from the same source primarily. An independent audit of GISS results is what is needed.

DR
July 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Pamela Gray:
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, ……..” – the unbridled wisdom of Nancy Pelosi.

July 22, 2010 7:59 pm

DR,
Here’s a 40-second clip of Nancy Pelosi lying through her teeth.

rbateman
July 22, 2010 8:05 pm

CRU has data that NASA/GISS, NOAA and it subsidiaries do not have that belongs in the USHCN. Specifically, records of the US Weather Bureau, Army Signal Corps and volunteer observers that data back to the early 1870’s. These records show the warm period prior to the 1880’s and would surely tip the back end of the climate record up. The net effect is embarassing for AGW and hockey-stick based models. Congress, and especially Rep. Sensenbrenner, should demand Phil Jones give a detailed account now. Make him explain the CRU 91/94/99 data sets and where he got the records. These data sets are not rocket science, and I’m quite sure they are well within the grasp of Congress to examine.

July 22, 2010 8:28 pm

If NASA is going to participate in the climate debate, they need to get their house in order. It is an administration that is by definition a scientific enterprise and this temperature/climate issue shows they are no longer doing science. Just bowing to someone’s agenda for funding. I really hate to see them come to this.

mike sphar
July 22, 2010 8:36 pm

Interesting that Congress pretty much paid for the CRU data already. Now its time to pay the piper. Perhaps putting Dr. Hansen in charge of the CRU data collection and manipulation will be the response.

Bulldust
July 22, 2010 8:53 pm

One thing about Australia… well two… is that our Prime Ministers (leader of the Federal Government over here) only get to serve a blissfully short 3 years (if they get that far… unlike Rudd), and we tend to have very short election campaigns. Just as well, because Aussies don’t have much tolerance for teh garbage that comes out of politicians at the best of times.
Case in point is Julia Gillard and speking today on climate policy:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate-protesters-disrupt-pms-speech/story-fn59niix-1225895949173
She wants to randomly select 150 citizens to assess the climate science:
“Labor’s climate change policy also includes the creation of a Citizens Assembly to forge a national consensus and a commission of experts.”
Online polls show about 90% of people think this is spin and hot air.

wayne
July 22, 2010 8:53 pm

Mr. Sensenbrenner, if you by chance read this, thank you from myself and family for starting the cleansing and clarification of responsibilities of these various science agencies and funded institutions. They seem to have veered off coarse and according to all information and data I have analyzed are out of control forcing them out of the realm of proper science.

1 2 3