This just in from U.S. Senator David Vitter’s office here’s now the official press release:
For Immediate Release Contact: Joel DiGrado (Vitter) (202) 224-4623
December 8, 2010 Emily Lawrimore (Barrasso) (202) 224-6441
Vitter, Barrasso Introduce Bill to Ensure Open, Accurate NASA Climate Data
(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sens. David Vitter and John Barrasso today introduced S. 4015, the Public Access to Historical Records Act, which would dramatically improve the transparency and accuracy of NASA’s historical records and guarantee public access to the data.
“Recent incidents, such as the investigation showing that the Obama administration manipulated data to justify the drilling moratorium, have raised concerns that some scientists and government agencies are using misleading data to support their favored viewpoints,” said Vitter. “This bill would open NASA’s temperature records to public scrutiny and establish an objective set of data to ensure that influential climate research is protected from political agendas.”
“Each year, Americans are forced to spend billions of their hard-earned dollars to support climate change research. Since this administration promised to be the most open administration in history, it should immediately share NASA’s temperature data with the American public,” said Barrasso. “There are too many questions regarding temperature models not to allow all Americans access to this data. This legislation will ensure that our nation has the most accurate and transparent historic temperature record in the world.”
The bill by Vitter and Barrasso is consistent with the Data Quality Act, which requires that scientific information from government agencies be accurate, clear, complete and unbiased. The Public Access to Historical Records Act would require NASA and the National Climatic Data Center to immediately release relevant climate data that outside groups have long been attempting to review through the Freedom of Information Act.
The bill would also force NASA to make all of its raw historical temperature data available online to the public and would require the agency to compile an official U.S. historical temperature record with oversight from an independent council of appointed meteorologists and statisticians. The resulting temperature record would be routinely reviewed for accuracy by an independent auditor and would be required for use as a primary source by any scientists or groups accepting federal money for climate research.
-30-
==================================================
The full bill as presented is available here Temperature-Records-Act-2010 (PDF)
I had a small hand in this, reviewing some language, but the thrust of the bill came from NASA’s stubborn refusal to provide FOI requested data and documents to CEI. Don’t these guys ever learn? Of course this bill is in its infancy, so there’s no telling if it will make it to law, and if it does, how much it will be modified, or if some pork will be added to it.
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
— Otto von Bismarck
So, we’ll watch the sausage being made here, and hope for the best. – Anthony
Aren’t they already breaking the law by disobeying the FOI requests? That calls for handcuffs, not yet another law.
While I’m all for government forcing itself to release raw data, the idea that the US government would produce an accurate, unpoliticized temperature record is laughable. Politics, stealing people’s money and giving it to scientists to produce the results the politicians want to hear, is what created the massive fraud that permeates all scientific study today. Having politicians take more control of the direct production of an official, government approved temperature record would make matters worse, not better.
Fan-friggin-tastic !
It’ll be interesting to watch this bill evolve and whether or not it makes it out of the starting gate because it will clue in the public as to just what exactly is going on behind the curtain of climate science.
I just sent an email to one of my senators, Diane Feinstein, asking her to support Senator Vitter’s bil and why I think that it is an abomination that such legislation should be necessary. I encourage WUWT readers to lobby their senators on behalf of S. 4015. A few hundred emails in support will go far in the hoary hallowed halls of our elected repsentatives.
Typo alert, “..Senator Vitter’s bilL…” Didn’t bother with my other senator for all of the obvious reasons.
Be very careful of unintended consequences!!! While I agree the raw data should be made available– it concerns me when the govt mandates an official temperature profile for any study (isn’t that what we have now?). Requiring the raw data be made available and documentation of any adjustments which may have been made should be sufficient for government funded research.
The raw data is part two — Part one is the adequacy of the system that produces the raw data.
I would prefer to see the new GOP president (after a damning audit exposing the fraud) re-assign Hansen, Schmidt, Serreze, et al, and appoint legitimate scientists to monitor and report on GMT.
I don’t like this provision:
• The resulting temperature record would have to be used as one (but not the only one) of the historical records by any scientists or group that accepts federal money for climate research.
Seems entirely sensible to me and it reads very well indeed. I wonder what the chances are that this will pass?
The empty 2008 promises of ‘open and transparent government’ will take a giant leap towards reality, if this bill can be passed by the Congressional Class of 2010.
A humble yet All American “Thank You!” to all of the hard working, honest scientists and pols working to restore a small measure of credibility to our US national science programs!
latitude says:
December 8, 2010 at 11:04 am
We can only hope……..
I want to see them have to explain how the ‘past’ keeps getting colder every time
they create a new temperature record…
###############
Just read the code. it’s pretty clear why this does happen and why it should.
How about we just zero budget the EPA and NASA until they provide raw data ? If some researcher wants academic freedom (from FOI), let them fund their own research.
RayG says: December 8, 2010 at 12:02 pm
“A few hundred emails in support will go far in the hoary hallowed halls of our elected repsentatives.”
Emails are easly ignored because they are perceived as not requiring any effort of the part of the (potentially automated, possibly cut-and-pasted) author.
If you really want to make an impact, then put pen to paper and write a letter out by hand, do not use a printer, use a stamp.
Request a response, do not include a phone number or email address in your letter.
A real letter communicates to the recipient a vastly higher level of concern and interest on the part of the author. Sending an email is worse then even a phone call.
Responding to an email, likewise, requires little effort, thought or cost; and can be completly automated.
Pen and Ink.
This is great news, although I suspect the paper shredders and disk wiping programmes will be working overtime at GISS before the bill gets passed.
Mike D. says:
December 8, 2010 at 11:24 am
If the EPA and NASA are balky at obeying the existing laws (i.e. FOIA) then just turn off the funding. Zero the balance. Shoo everyone out and lock the doors.
That’s the win-win-win solution. We don’t need more laws, for goodness sake.
=========
Love it! Like the Reagan solution to the striking air traffic controllers in the early 80s. He just fired ’em all in one fell presidential swoop. I admire the man for many things, but he’s a god in my eyes for that single act alone.
Speaking of climate, data, and integrity … o/t but Donna Laframboise has found* a “Powerful New Research Tool that assist those who are interested in exploring the integrity of the IPCC’s AR4 to “analyze it more comprehensively than ever before.” She concludes that this tool, AccessIPCC “represents an enormous leap forward. We now have a more user-friendly – and immeasurably richer – way of evaluating the IPCC’s Nobel-winning report.”
*Full disclosure: Well, “found” isn’t exactly the right word, because as one of the two people Donna names as being responsible for this, I had let her know about it 🙂
Readers might be interested in the views of those who – thanks to Bishop Hill’s highlighting this in The annotated AR4 really can be said to have “found” it!
BH reports that “the overall effect … is to illuminate our understanding of the AR4 process”. I couldn’t agree more! But then I am somewhat biased:-)
[i]”Laws like sausages are always better after being cooked by the press; diced by the lawyers, and seasoned by the end user.”[/i]
Wouldn’t this mean that laws should be distorted by the press, then dissected by the lawyers to remove any real meaning, and finally packaged to match the reader’s preconceptions?
Sounds like a good description for the process that got us into this mess.
Links to the Act S. 4015 itself do not work. I am interested in seeing if processing algorithms and the resulting data sets are subject to “Requirements Management”. Such management would document (as a time series) the changes and adjustments made to the raw data sets.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/temperature-records-act-2010.pdf
“The full bill as presented is available here Temperature-Records-Act-2010 (PDF)”
NCDC, national climactic data center, already has their raw data available. As I understand it, this is the bulk of the land data in NASA’s analyses. The SST data NASA uses is from CRU, I think. I’ve done a basic workup of the NCDC temperatures. My source code (Linux) and links to the raw data at http://justdata.wordpress.com
Restoring science to it’s rightful place, one law at a time.
I agree with those commenting above that it is absolutely disgraceful that a law like this must be passed to prompt the release of taxpayor funded data to the taxpayors. Let’s hope the law passes with serious consequences for those who ignore it.
As a “Skeptic”, “Denier”, “Luddite” I find myself strangely optomistic upon hearing this news. I’m quite sure I’ll feel better tomorrow.
NASA’s relevance took another notch down earlier today. The fact that a private company orbited and retrieved a spacecraft suitable for human crew makes it harder for NASA to claim unique expertise. http://www.spacedaily.com/
if the bill passes, this is the important paragraph for me…
lets place bets
Anthony Watts (meteorologist) and Steve McIntyre (statistician) for council.
p.s. Great Job Hilary. Access IPCC will be a great open source tool. those compiling the AR5 will check and double check every dotted i and every crossed t. there are thousands of citizen auditors waiting with green pens in hand.
Raw satellite data is pretty difficult stuff to make sense of. I hope this doesn’t backfire…
What we need in addition are the relevant codes which turn the raw data into indices certified by oversight committees formed of field experts. No more Claus Frohlich using adjustments designed to correct one part of a satellite record on other parts to reduce trends etc.
Mr Marc “kick ass” Morano need to add an “H” to ttp. . . . in his link to here.