Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?

Newsbusters ^ | 8/9/2007 | Noel Sheppard

[AFPhys]

I am so very disgusted at the way these “scientists” like Hansen have been hiding the way they arrive at their results. The “cold fusion” researchers did so much better a job of making sure that their research was open to others, so their results could be validates. These AGW “scientists” are mere hacks.

[WOSG]

U.S temperature record:

Another comment on same site cited above asks ..."Also, as others have said, this was the low hanging fruit. The error noted by Steve M. was obvious, its source was obvious, and the fix was obvious. The keepers of the data could not argue against it and so they caved in and adjusted their data in less than a week. The fact that one error had such a profound impact on a key piece of hype that is used to push the need for drastic action should make everybody pause and wonder what the eventual outcome will be of the broader issues being looked at by Anthony Watts and his volunteer observers. What happens if there is another tenth of a degree (or more) taken out of the dataset by errors and biases uncovered there? Doesn’t that begin to call into question the whole theory of AGW? If the models can account for warming up to the 1950s with natural forcings, but not all of the warming since 1980, then what happens if that chunk of the post-1980s warming is found to be error or measurement artifacts? Will the experts admit that the models can account for all warming with natural forcings? Then what? The wheels fall off the Al Gore snake-oil-mobile."

[WOSG]

I wasn’t fortunate enough to watch it, but I did read his testimony. His point that cold deaths greatly out number deaths from excessive heat, and thus USA would see *lower death rates* from any potential global warming was a delicious pinprick to the AGW hype bubble.

He has a keen way of cutting through the bunkum on a topic.

No wonder the Democrats walked out on him.

[Tribune7]

ping

[P-40]

If you have RealPlayer on your computer the link to the hearing is still active.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/energy/energy032107_climate2.rm

House Hearing on Global Climate Change
Bjorn Lomborg, of the Copenhagen Business School and author of a book titled, ?The Skeptical Environmentalist.?
3/21/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 54 min.

[WOSG]

See this comment:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/#comment-46779

Last week, Bush signed a bill on “America COMPETES”. There is a relevant part on the open exchange of data and metadata:

“SEC. 1009. RELEASE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RESULTS.

(a) Principles- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the heads of all Federal civilian agencies that conduct scientific research, shall develop and issue an overarching set of principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of data and results to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist employed by a Federal civilian agency and to prevent the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of such research findings. The principles shall encourage the open exchange of data and results of research undertaken by a scientist employed by such an agency and shall be consistent with existing Federal laws, including chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code (commonly known as the `Bayh-Dole Act’). The principles shall also take into consideration the policies of peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Federal scientists may currently publish results.”

As a climate researcher, I wholeheartedly support the above principles. In my opinion research scientists (and particularly government research scientists) should not be given any “choice” in this matter if they wish to receive government research funding, publish their research in the peer reviewed journals of the major professional societies, and have their data used in assessment reports.

Yes all this adds to the cost of doing research, and even the COMPETE bill is apparently an unfunded mandate. But it’s a cost we need to accommodate in some way. I have seen too many examples in the climate field where scientists do not want to make their data and metadata available to skeptics such as Steve McIntyre since they don’t want to see their research attacked (and this has even been condoned by a funding agency). Well, in the world of science, if you want your hypotheses and theories to be accepted, they must be able to survive attacks by skeptics. Because of its policy importance, climate research at times seems like “blood sport.” But in the long run, the credibility of climate research will suffer if climate researchers don’t “take the high ground” in engaging skeptics.