CEI’s Chris Horner sends word of this development, via The American Spectator:
Last night the Competitive Enterprise Institute, through its outside counsel Gibson Dunn, filed its brief arguing against NASA’s rather scattershot and contradictory effort to dismiss our lawsuit requesting certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(press release available here).
Our suit, CEI vs. NASA (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), followed on the heels of ClimateGate, and a December 2009 Notice of Intent to Sue if NASA did not turn over certain records withheld since CEI sought them in August 2007 and January 2008 requests. That Notice was eleven months ago and, despite NASA offering some documents and admitting — temporarily — that certain others relating to the advocacy site used by NASA scientists, RealClimate.org were “agency records”, NASA then ceased its brief steps to comply with the transparency statute FOIA.
Despite NASA stonewalling CEI has already learned, for example, that NASA does not, contrary to widespread media and pressure group claims, have an independent temperature data set. Instead, as NASA told USA Today in an email, despite its serial, breathless press releases trumpeting some new temperature high, it actually is just a modeling office, which also (for unknown reasons, possibly extra attention and importance, or mere advocacy) cobbles together some US data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) with that of the Climatic Research Unit’s temperature history. You may recall how CRU withdrew its claim to a temperature history data set after ClimateGate led to an admission it actually lost its data.
Specifically, CEI’s FOIA suit seeks documents and emails relating to NASA’s temperature record, which NASA was forced to correct in response to criticism from a leading climate watchdog, Steve McIntyre. Those corrections destroyed NASA’s stance that U.S. temperatures have been steadily rising in recent years and returned 1934, not 1998, to being the warmest year on record. NASA refuses to give CEI the computer file they used to make these changes, whose title includes “Steve” and “alternate cleaning.”
CEI also seeks emails from NASA scientists using Real Climate.org on official time using official resources, often to advance what NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (its climate activist office) has decided is appropriate public advocacy.
In addition to uncovering the “Steve”/”cleaning” file, a few of the more interesting pieces of evidence expounded upon in CEI’s brief include:
Read the rest at The American Spectator
From the press release:
A few compelling questions and pieces of information:
- Why did NASA delete timestamps off the [realclimate.org] website? After CEI filed the FOIA seeking RealClimate emails, administrators at Real Climate deleted all timestamps on all of their postings, making it impossible to show they were made during work hours.
- NASA admits that it discovered 3,500 emails on the computer used by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a taxpayer-funded NASA researcher who spends working hours running and writing for RealClimate. But NASA refuses to produce the emails.
- Why did NASA delay? NASA did not ask Dr. Schmidt to look for responsive records until 22 months after we sent them the FOIA and threatened to sue. It is highly likely relevant emails were destroyed during this period.
- Furthermore, NASA took more than 900 days to produce documents pursuant to CEI’s two 2007 requests. The agency took more than 700 days to produce records in response to CEI’s 2008 request. NASA does not explain these delays. FOIA requires that an agency produce responsive records within 20 days. Although agencies rarely meet that deadline, even for “complex” FOIA requests, NASA’s average processing time is under 100 days. In 2008, NASA processed complex requests in 82 days, on average. In 2009, it processed such requests in 89 days, on average.
CEI is represented by Andrew S. Tulumello of Gibson Dunn, which is handling the lawsuit pro bono.
D. W. Schnare says:
You dump every 90 days? I worked for DOD up until about three years ago and they kept e-mails forever. Not on the main system, but they WERE available if needed on some sort of back-up system. And our system administrator couldn’t get to them (assuming he wanted to) to change them. We had to do that because we were required to keep all documention (forever it seems) incase of legal action or Congressional inquiry. Paper stuff for all Governmental departments is stored in an old salt mine somewhere. Again, forever.
I don’t quite understand why the CEI allowed NASA to have such a huge delay. If FOIA requests are meant to take 20 days , I can understand the CEI waiting say 50-100 days but 700 days seems extraordinary ( they certainly cannot be accused of hassling NASA). Surely there must something within the law that gives the CEI a means to object or get more urgent action.
Robert, Roger & Rational. The merits of your case or the deficiencies in my climate knowledge (of which their are many) are surely a matter for discussion in an appropriate forum. Amongst scientists that would be through the established journal process, not the law courts. I will have no problem if road salt proves a better explanation for climate behaviour than CO2. I will have a huge problem if the proponent of such an idea is the target of political or legal attack. Freedom of expression without interference is one of the cornerstones of modern democracies. Consider very carefully the consequences of weakening it.
Can you say “NASA-gate?”
Well, that seems to imply to me that our current theories of how the climate system works are simply inadequate. Why?
How do you account for the fact that each of the last 4 major interglacial periods were warmer than today, some of them with sea levels considerably higher than the present, while CO2 levels were lower than today? Magic?
This is going to be the end of AGW but it is not just NASA but also the MSM that needs reminding of its obligation to search out and print the truth. We have had the reminder of what they used to be like by the tag on “gate”. Where are those investigating journalists when you need them?
Freedom of speech has never included the freedom to use the speech in the commission of crimes such as bank robberies, mass murders, medical fraud, or falsifying data for grant fraud. It is remarkable to see you have expressed no equivalent objections to the use of legal process in denying free speech to those persons reporting or whistleblowing evidence of AGW related scientific fraud.
“Using of the legal framework to harass scientists”? Scientists? What scientists? Do you mean the skeptical scientists fired from their jobs as state climatologists, the EPA, and elsewhare for challenging the AGW fraud? No?
Oh, yes, you mean the fraudsters implicated in the Climategate e-mails. They’re not really scientists, now are they, otherwise they would have been immediately forthcoming with the scientifice evidence that would have made a 700 day old FOIA request and enforcing lawsuit entirely unnecessary. To be a real climate scientist you would have to practice a real scientific method with real data and scientific method replication by sceptical critics, now wouldnt you? Or, perhaps you would disagree because you believe in post-normal science and the quality of the results of post-normal science?
You say if the fraudsters “methods are deficient or conclusions ill-conceived, show them as such in the science.” Perhaps you have some magical method for doing so despite the refusal of the fraudsters to disclose the scientific data and methods required to do so by any person seeking to replicate the scientific experiment.
Ammonite says: November 4, 2010 at 11:15 pm
” Freedom of expression without interference is one of the cornerstones of modern democracies. ”
Freedom of expression does not include shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire; neither does it include shouting ‘we have set ourselves on fire’ on a crowded planet when we have in fact not.
The objective of the investigation, in both cases, is to determine if the person or persons doing the shouting can prove that they had the evidence at the time to cause the panic.
Freedom of expression does not include the freedom to lie and cause a panic.
An investigation is warranted.
Mike Edwards says:
How do you account for …? Magic?
Hi Mike. You have elected to challenge my statement on an evidence basis, something I respect immensely and not a lawyer in sight.
D. Patterson says:
Ah, yes, you mean the fraudsters…
Fraud must be the most overused word on this site. Have independent groups attempted to reconstruct past temperatures from paleo data? Were the results broadly consistent with MBH99? Did the results change appreciably without tree ring data? Is this a complex and ongoing area of research? Could a researcher have other motives (noble or otherwise) for not releasing data than to hide wrong doing?
No doubt we have arrived at different conclusions.
Andrew30 says:
Freedom of expression does not include the freedom to lie and cause a panic.
An investigation is warranted.
Will you be applying your investigation to every scientist and scientific body attached to the IPCC? The danger I percieve Andrew is that any scientist anywhere has work that could “cause a panic” and on the basis of a hearsay email I can launch a comprehensive investigation into any and all aspects of their work (effectively preventing ongoing research for a period) which may be motivated by political ends. Such a process is open to significant abuse.
I expect to be offline for some days. I realise I am swimming against a significant current at WUWT on this issue. Please take care with ends and means.
I made a start! How about we choose a month or so each?
Note any posts by NASA employees on Mon to Fri between 9am and 5pm.
By the slowness of web.archive I guess lots of people are looking!
From web.archive of RealClimate
Thu 02-Dec-04 gavin @ur momisugly 12:42 pm
Tue 07-Dec-04 gavin @ur momisugly 11:21 am
Tue 18-Jan-05 gavin @ur momisugly 11:08 am
Wed 12-Jan-05 gavin @ur momisugly 12:02 pm
“The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.”
Ammonite says:
November 5, 2010 at 4:06 am
Please take care with ends and means.
Ah, if only the Warmalarmist “Scientists” had heeded that advice, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. But, it’s too late now. Let the chips fall where they may. I suspect even they know what they are guilty of.
Ammonite says:
November 4, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“To RockyRoad, DCC, Gene Zeien, Nullius in Verba, JPeden. I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of CO2 induced warming (as I understand it) on any science dominated thread. Unfortunately this thread highlights the recent trend of using of the legal framework to harass scientists. I see this as a tremendous wrong. If their methods are deficient or conclusions ill-conceived, show them as such in the science journals.”
Precisely my reaction to this thread, which is an exercise in masturbation by the anti AGW crowd which dominates this web site.
This case is about a couple of small problems. Gavin cheating on his job and doing other work and not producing FOIA requests
The larger problem is Gavin and Mann offering bad science which will be obvious if the do produce the e-mails. It will incriminate them as biased, looney and horrible in science.
The largest problem which many suspect is cooking data. If data has been manipulated, temps adjusted downward or upward to fit the dogma we have a global problem. If the IPCC relied on data and reporrts regarding data that was cooked and altered, we have a political volcanoe.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_green_bubble_is_about_to_b.html
Fake is fake.
Ammonite said:
“Freedom of expression without interference is one of the cornerstones of modern democracies. Consider very carefully the consequences of weakening it.”
What you say is very true, however there is no freedom to lie and cheat and deceive and nor should there be. Bodies and organisations that are funded by the taxpayer should be held accountable for their individual and corporate actions.
Freedom of expression should never be conflated or deliberately confused with fraudulent activities and that is what the warmists are attempting to do.
The FOI success on this so far reveals that the “independent” reconstructions of GISS and Hadley are only different in how they manipulate the data, if then.
Phil Jones et al at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) and a number of their associates committed violations of the law regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) and thereby defrauded membrs of the public entitled to certain scientific information while colluding to destroy the taxpayer paid scientific information. They also manipulated the laws regarding the statute of limitations to commit the violations and still escape prosecution and punishment for the fraud and other violations of the law.
Likewise, the recipients of the FOIA requests at NASA GISS have blatantly violated the laws and defrauded the public by their withholding of taxpayer funded information for more than tentimes the allowed delays and suspected destruction of evidence. Consequently, there is abundant evidence of fraud by the subjects in question. It only remains to be seen to what extent, if any, the apparent defrauding may be the legitimate subject of further investigation and potential prosecution.
In the meantime, don’t pretend the targets of these investigations have commited no fraud. The Climategate disclosures are already acknowledged by the British Government as undeniable evidence of FOIA fraud at the absolute minimum. Likewise, NASA has already acknowledged that it is in violation of the FOIA law at the very least. It is unfortunate for you that “fraudsters” and “fraud” are terms justifiably applicable to the actions of the AGW proponents you wish to defend, so you had better buckle on your seat belt and get used to the terminology. You’ll be seeing much more use of the terms and worse in the days, weeks, and months to come as the activities of the AGW proponents begin to come under investigation in connection with Cap and Trade, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide, grant fraud, and so much more. As Bill Clinton discovered to his chagrin, sometimes there are still consequences which result from trying to litigate the meaning of what is is in an attempt to deceive the public.
<blockquote.eadler says:
November 5, 2010 at 6:23 am
Ammonite says:
November 4, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“To RockyRoad, DCC, Gene Zeien, Nullius in Verba, JPeden. I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of CO2 induced warming (as I understand it) on any science dominated thread. Unfortunately this thread highlights the recent trend of using of the legal framework to harass scientists. I see this as a tremendous wrong. If their methods are deficient or conclusions ill-conceived, show them as such in the science journals.”
Precisely my reaction to this thread, which is an exercise in [trimmed] by the anti AGW crowd which dominates this web site.
The explanation is quite simple. You are erroneously and unjustifiably projecting your own behavior in the mistaken belief others behave as you do.
If you want a discussion of science then demand immediate compliance with the FOIA requests so the data, methods, and other information encompassed by the FOIA requests can be replicated and discussed. Don’t, and be ignored as a troll attempting to assist others to evade scientific, political, and legal accountability.
[But just which crowd is avoiding FOIA requirements and not releasing data? Robt]
I think this whole issue could be resolved if the Goddard Space Flight Center would simple absorb the work current provided by GISS in their expen$ive New York City office, and move those who want to continue down to their headquarters in Greenbelt MD. They may have more oversight down there. They should also consider changing their management structure.
Of course, an even better solution would be to make GISS a non-profit, non-governmental entity funded entirely by George Soros. It would save my tax dollars being spent on dubious GISS projects and software, and Hansen and company could make as many hysterical climate “disruption” press releases as they want, backed by their ideological soulmate, George Soros. Everybody wins!
Ammonite says: November 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm
It is very difficult to construct a coherent theory that accounts for the internal dynamics of recent warming in the absence of elevated GHGs. Relative warming of night over day, polar over equatorial, winter over summer, low atmosphere over high atmosphere are all markers of green house gas. In the absence of any credible alternative theory to AGW I guess you just have to play the man rather than the ball…
As a denier, I couldn’t agree more. The GHG is called water and the reason it increased ~1975-~2000 is called positive PDO. Explains everything. No proof needed, just like CO2.
eadler says:November 5, 2010 at 6:23 am
“To RockyRoad, DCC, Gene Zeien, Nullius in Verba, JPeden. I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of CO2 induced warming (as I understand it) on any science dominated thread. Unfortunately this thread highlights the recent trend of using of the legal framework to harass scientists. I see this as a tremendous wrong. If their methods are deficient or conclusions ill-conceived, show them as such in the science journals.”
Ammonite says:November 4, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Precisely my reaction to this thread, which is an exercise in masturbation by the anti AGW crowd which dominates this web site.
There’s one of the most obvious slow-witted example of circular AGW logic I’ve evvaarr seen.
It should be quote of the week.
So how are other scientists to expose shoddy science in juornals when they can’t get the original data and methodology? OMG, that’s precisely why they file a FOIA.
Duh
No one is talking about deficient methods or ill-conceived conclusions as a basis for prosecution. I understand that this is about failure to comply with FOIA laws, covering up data, possible destruction of materials related to the FOIA requests, among other things. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) Then there are civil issues (as outlined above).
How is it that scientists are immune from investigation and possible legal prosecution for alleged bad acts when there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation? If you can’t investigate via legal channels, what chance is there to build a case and prosecute?
When did this happen? Gee, I wish *I* had the foresight to become a member of the privileged elite.
Wow.