Thread: Global warming controversy hits NASA climate data

Global warming controversy hits NASA climate data

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... e-dispute/

By Stephen Dinan

The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data.

Christopher C. 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 explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating 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 its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cool

Mr. Horner, a noted skeptic of global warming 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.

Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory, said officials are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."

Mr. Horner's fight mirrors one that has sprung up in Britain since the release of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which appear to show researchers shaving their data to conform to their expectations. They also note efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.

The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.

The center has had to acknowledge in response to a Freedom of Information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind the global warming theory.

Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data shaving has happened at GISS, a leading climate change research center. Mr. Hess said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn't say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data.

The White House has dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.

"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill say the revelations deserve a congressional investigation. Republican leaders also sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on Wednesday telling her that she should withdraw a series of EPA rules until the climate change science can be better substantiated.

For now, climate scientists are rallying around the British researchers.

Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University who is under fire for his involvement in the British e-mail exchanges, said the e-mails' release was timed to interfere with next week's U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen. President Obama is planning to attend.

"They've taken scientists' words and phrases and quoted them out of context, completely misrepresenting what they were saying," Mr. Mann told AccuWeather.com in an interview, calling it a "manufactured controversy."

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

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931, respectively. After Mr. McIntyre's questions, GISS rejiggered the list to show 1934 as the warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. Since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs as 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921 and 1999.

The institute blamed "a minor data processing error" for the changes but said 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 acknowledgment of his three separate FOIA requests, but has received e-mails showing that the agency is aware of them.

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

NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the Earth is warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues that its data suggest this decade has been the warmest on record.

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

But Republicans on Capitol Hill say the revelations deserve a congressional investigation. Republican leaders also sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on Wednesday telling her that she should withdraw a series of EPA rules until the climate change science can be better substantiated.

This statement right here speaks volumes. More published scientists are against the hypothesis of man made global warming than those that are for it. Sean Hannity has said many times that we are making political decisions on the junk science of man made global warming.

We have already proven scientifically that the Vikings were farming on Greenland in the year 1000 AD, and we have also proven that the Earth was hotter during this period that it is now.

Also keep in mind the IPCC is the same politically driven group who 30 years ago told us we were headed for the next ice age because the Earth was in a cooling phase. Since when can they accurately predict the weather 30 years from now? They can't even do it accurately five days from now!

Don't buy the Al Gore rhetoric folks. This is the same man who refused to take the carbon reduction pledge he wants every human being on the planet to take. This is also the same man who's home uses more energy in a month than an average American family home uses in a year.

Here's a good video worth watching. These are scientists and experts against man made global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s