Free Markets, Free People

NASA May Have Its Own Climaquiddick Problem

To my mind, the biggest indicator of malfeasance in this whole Climaquiddick affair is the fact that researchers have been forced to use freedom of information laws to get to the underlying data that supposedly supports AGW. The leaked emails show that the CRU gang at least contemplated trashing data to keep it from private eyes, and with respect to original temperature data, in fact did trash it. Why, if the evidence is so overwhelming, would anyone want to keep such data from public view? Well, you know why, and it appears that NASA may have a similar problem:

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

Mr. Horner, a noted global warming skeptic and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he’s given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he’ll sue to compel the information’s release.

Image via <a href="">The Smallest Minority</a>

Image via The Smallest Minority

My familiarity with FOIA requests stems from legal cases, and I know that there are some fairly systematic, and time-consuming procedures that a government agency must go through before delivering the requested material. Typically, in the legal realm, the biggest time-consumer is filtering the material for privileged and classified material that need to be redacted before responding to the request. However, in the realm of scientific fact (i.e. requesting raw data), I can’t for the life of me think of one reason why any such data would have to be redacted or withheld. Temperature records, in the very least, should be easily producible well within the the 20 day limit for such requests.

To be sure, Horner is also seeking emails (and presumably other documents) that discuss the GISS reasoning underlying decisions to change the warmest dates on record, which could take some extra time:

NASA’s GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre’s questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.

The institute blamed a “minor data processing error” for the changes but says it doesn’t make much difference since the top three years remain in a “statistical tie” either way.

Mr. Horner said he’s seeking the data itself, but he also wants to see the chain of e-mails from scientists discussing the changes.

The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days. Mr. Horner says he’s never received an official acknowledgement of his three separate FOIA requests, but has received e-mails showing the agency is aware of them.

He said he has provided NASA with a notice of intent to sue under FOIA, but said he also hopes members of Congress get involved and demand the information be released.

NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.

On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.

Obviously the numbers matter, as does the justification for changing them. If everything was done in good faith, then there shouldn’t be anything to worry about. That such stonewalling has been going on for two years (according to Horner) suggests that there is something to hide.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

8 Responses to NASA May Have Its Own Climaquiddick Problem

  • However, in the realm of scientific fact (i.e. requesting raw data), I can’t for the life of me think of one reason why any such data would have to be redacted or withheld.

    Several of the climate labs have essentially stated that this data is either proprietary to the people who gave it to them or the resulting aggregated data is proprietary to their labs.  As such they either can’t or won’t release it publicly.  If they and their data donors are wholly funded by public dollars, these people shouldn’t have a leg to stand on though.

  • It looks like the Chicken Little sc*mbags have invaded and infested the entire scientific community with their “climate change” fraud.

    We need a new administration to cleanse this entire thing from our thinking processes. Right now, we have a dipsh!t as President who is part of the problem, not the solution. In 2010, we need to replace those who bow to the “climate change” frauds, and in 2012 remove this fascist regime in the White House and replace it with one based on scientific fact, not what Al Gore had for dinner last night that he believes is harming the Earth. For us, Al Gore is harming the Earth.

    • That’s President Dipsh!t to you mister 😉
      Yeah the guy who hates being photographed with the F-22

  • Add me to the list of people wondering* why there isn’t more pressure being put on these people to make their data public.  On one side, we’re talking about policies that could cost trillions of dollars and severely damage economies and standards of living.  On the other side, we’re trying to stave off a catastrophic climatological shift that may not be reversible once it reaches a certain point.  But no… it’s not important enough to make sure that we thoroughly check and test our data!
    *I’m kidding, I don’t think anyone wonders why the data is being held so closely to the vest.  It’s almost amusing to see the champions of alarmism acting in the most cynical fashion when it comes to the validity of the information about the climate.  It would actually be amusing if the stakes weren’t so high.

  • Every time you look deeper into this AGW labyrinth, the more it smells.

  • I think it was Ron Bailey of Reason magazine who had an interesting article that pointed out that, besides the CRU, NASA and NOAA both had contributed to the IPCC report. Oh, and the Obama Administration scientists are arguing that NASA and NOAA essentially replicate the CRU results; independent verification of results.

    Interesting point made by Bailey is that the raw data used by CRU, NASA, and NOAA are all basically pulled from the same sources, i.e., it is mostly the same data.

    So each group took essentially the same data, performed some operations upon this data, and ended up with essentially the same result. This suggest to me that the operations they performed are also essentially the same.

    Now, consider what we know about the CRU’s operations on the data. They had to resort to fraud to get the desired positive slope at the desired time period.  Wouldn’t NASA and NOAA have had to do the same?