Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 65

And now the focus is shifting to NASA.

IBD Editorials   NASA-Gate

Posted 12/04/2009 07:15 PM ET

Science: For two years, our space agency has refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has repeatedly corrected its climate figures. A leading researcher threatens to sue to find more inconvenient truths.

What’s become known as ”Climate-Gate” may be about to explode on this side of the pond as well. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has threatened a lawsuit against NASA if by year-end the agency doesn’t honor his FOI requests for information on how and why its climate numbers have been consistently adjusted for errors.

”I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” says Horner, who suspects, based on the public record, the same type of data fudging, manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit. ”These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”

They may have good reason. NASA was caught with its thermometers down when James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that 1998 was the country’s hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest.

NASA and Goddard were forced to correct the record in 2007 to show that 1934, decades before the advent of the SUV, was in fact the warmest. In fact, the new numbers showed that four of the country’s 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.

Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record. This despite the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

Scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on that October’s readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running. Was Hansen, like his CRU counterpart Michael Mann, trying to ”hide the decline” in temperatures?

Goddard now says it got the data from another body and didn’t have the resources to verify them. There’s a phrase for this: garbage in, garbage out. Goddard’s figures are one of the four data sets used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to come up with its doomsday scenarios. Britain‘s CRU is another.

Hansen has said in the past that ”heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” What penalties would he recommend for himself and his CRU colleagues?

We recall the unguarded admission of climate alarmist Steven Schneider of Stanford, printed in Discover in 1989: ”To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

The warm-mongers at CRU and NASA may be neither. Let’s open their books to find how well they may have been cooked.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”” rel=”tag”>USA</a>


Etiketter: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 svar to “Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 65”

  1. jallen Says:

    It was not the Russians. A Russian gateway/proxy was used to *conceal* identity. If it were the Russians, the would have used a far off proxy server, not one in their own back yard.

    Do not forget, the emails were sent much earlier to the BBC who then sat on the story for 3 weeks…

    It was an insider/whistleblower.

    They are the residual emails of a batch which had already been *sanitized* from the CRU systems, in order to illegally prepare an incomplete response for a future (likely successful) FOIA request. The emails in question were *not* going to be provided under a FOIA request.

    Note that there is a very small percentage of personal-chatter emails that typically characterize friendly colleague’s familiar communication. Therefore, this lack of small-talk emails points to a deliberate culling. They were going to “leave in” the harmless small talk to be produces under FOIA.

    These are deleted emails from a sanitized batch which were foolishly or purposely archived and/or discovered by an insider or whistleblower (perhaps the sanitizer himself). The insider then had pangs of conscience or an axe to grind and released them surreptitiously.

    If so, he may enjoy protection under the UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998, which was enacted to protect whistleblowers.

    For interesting mere speculation on the possible identity of the whistleblower, see:


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: