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
woodNfish
July 25, 2010 3:23 pm

NASA is a [snip] government agency actively engaged in the promotion of junk science. It should be shut down.

barry
July 25, 2010 6:52 pm

As independent temperature records ginned up by skeptics using raw temperature data are close to and some even higher than the official records, what ‘scandal’ is the House referring to? Even the UAH team acknowledge there is little difference between their temperature record and the surface records. Comparing Jones’ analysis and his own work on the surface record, he said,
“I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses”
It would appear that if there was any bias in the CRU record, the impact is small or non-existent, and in any case, GISS temp trends is lower than any of the skeptical records made with raw data (depending on the period selected).
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-land-temperature-reconstructions/
The team at the Air Vent (Jeff Id, Roman etc) find a warmer centennial trend than any of the surface records using raw data.

First the obvious, a skeptic, denialist, anti-science blog published a greater trend than Phil Climategate Jones. What IS up with that?
Several skeptics will dislike this post. They are wrong, in my humble opinion. While winning the public “policy” battle outright, places pressure for a simple unified message, the data is the data and the math is the math. We”re stuck with it, and this result. In my opinion, it is a better method.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
While there are minor differences, the surface and satellite records are about the same as serious reconstructions done from raw data – and done by climate change skeptics. The scandal here is not about temp records, but that the ‘climategate’ smoke machine has led to governments trying to put out non-existent fires, wasting your tax dollars.

barry
July 25, 2010 6:58 pm

On the topic of temp records, I’m looking forward to the comparative analysis of the US temperature trend using the best rated stations as assessed by the surfacestations.org project.
How is the paper progressing, Anthony? Has it been submitted yet?
REPLY: Well that’s for me to know and you to find out. We’ll make an announcement when we are ready. After having NCDC “borrow” our data just to preempt the paper we have been writing, I’ve learned not to trust anyone (especially anonymous trolls like yourself) with further details until we can announce it. Given what we’ve read in the Climategate emails, I have no doubt that some team members would lobby a journal to keep it out. See below:
===================================
From: Phil Jones

To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
it.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers
Phil
========================
Reference: http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=.txt
– Anthony

barry
July 25, 2010 7:30 pm

REPLY: Well that’s for me to know and you to find out.

Indeed, that’s why I’m asking you. The surfacestations project is a worthy contribution. I’m sorry that your experience has led you to fear even giving a hint as to when you may submit the paper for review. I sincerely wish you the best with it, whatever the outcome.
REPLY: Thanks. Experience has demonstrated that scientists, especially Peterson, Menne, and director Karl of NCDC have no scruples. – Anthony