Skip to comments.NASA-Gate
Posted on 12/04/2009 5:28:26 PM PST by Kaslin
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
In his book “Red Hot Lies” Christopher Horner discusses the EXACT tack this guy Howard Gould would take on the Fox news video discussion you linked to. It is apparently old hat to Horner, and evident to anyone who has paid attention to the alarmist refutations of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics such as Chris Horner.
Here is Gould’s argument:
1.) The science is settled. These skeptics don’t have any arguments. (This is the equivalent of “I’m right and you’re wrong...end of argument!”
2.) It is only a miniscule number of people who don’t buy into man-made catastrophic global warming. “And did I say the argument is settled?” (Gould says: “If you go to 100 doctors and they all say one thing, and one doctor says something else, who should you believe?”
3.) What they usually do is label people who don’t believe in catastrophic global warming to Holocaust Deniers, Flat Earth Society members and Heretics in general. The only thing missing was that we didn’t hear Gould call Horner a “poopyhead”. That’s it, folks.
HOORAY Chris Horner and C.E.I.!
Can we all agree to stop calling things something-gate.
What’s going to happen when there is a scandal with some gate somewhere? Gate-gate?
Let’s call it “Hide the weenie.”
Calls mount for Obama to fire NASA scientist
That’s great. Sounds like a good book. Gould must have read the it—he definitely had it down pat :)
In the case of James Hansen, it is at least 28 years too late.
“.....like his CRU counterpart Michael Mann, trying to “hide the decline” in temperatures?”
I thought Michael Mann was University of Pennsylvania.
We’re already learning the next global man-made global crisis: Ocean acidification!! Horrors! Unlike the global warming connection, there is no controversy that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and man is most likely the cause. That it is causing global warming is being debunked. However, they are now going after its possible effects on ocean life. I don’t think that’s going anywhere as CO2 has been a lot higher and again ocean plants may increase to reduce its effects. But that’s the latest “sky is falling” call by the ecofreaks and one worlders.
Plants are prospering with the additional CO2. Since the first satellite survey (in 1968, I believe) the tree-covered area of the earth has measurably increased. (Despite the "rape of the rain forest"...)
We can safely posit that the ocean plants -- which also convert CO2 into oxygen -- have been doing the same.
Actually, here is the thing, but before I begin, I just want everyone to be sure to read this post all the way to the end before jumping down my throat, because I am trying to make an important distinction that we as “Global Warming Skeptics” must understand in order to make effective arguments:
1.) Nobody who understands the issue will deny that there is indeed global warming going on. That is undeniable and it is provable.
2.) Nobody who understands the issue will deny that some of man’s activities may be involved in that global warming. That is something even many skeptics will accept.
Here is where the skepticism comes into play:
1.) We agree there is warming, and the data may show it, but it is NOT something that is historically unique. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
2.) The amount of CO2 added by man’s activities will NOT result in catastrophic change.
When referring to this, the people led by Al Gore and James Hansen believe that each word in this following phrase is settled, undeniable, scientific, true, accurate and significant: CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.
Remember that. It is key to framing any argument you must make.
The Part of the chart they left off:
According to the Dallas Morning News editors, everything is cool with the other three research units.
Here is an excerpt from todays editorial in the Dallas Morning News.
“”But human-driven climate change does exist. The evidence for it is so strong that the outrageous CRU deception scarcely damages it. CRU is one of four major research units around the world keeping comprehensive global temperature records. Every one of them has reached the same conclusions as the British. Are they all lying?”””
Think about what these editors have said in the above sentence.
1. The British research unit engaged in outrageous deception by using false data and corrupt computer models.
2. The other three research units used good data and good computer models.
3. All four research units reached the same conclusion.
Hmmm???? How can this be? The British engage in outrageous deception and reach conclusion A. The other three research units use angelic data and angelic computer models and also reach conclusion A.
Since the editors have already confessed that the British are lying, therefore to answer the editors question: Yes, they are all lying.
We have Freedom of the Press for a reason. And that reason is not to let the Press engage in propaganda. The Press should be a bastion of truth searchers.
Note that these two sections of graphs are on EXACTLY the same time frame scale and EXACTLY the same temperature scale. One part of the graph is from a time when man-made global warming effects were not supposed to be as pronounced, and the other is from the 51 year cycle when things supposedly got hot enough to send us to the "tipping point" towards catastrophe!
Can you tell which one is which?
The ball game is not just about over, they will fight for their green religion
Figures never lie but figurerers often do....
(guess it depends where you start your data from....)
Notice the sine trend. Mr Fourier would have loved this!
Hansen is the leaker of the emails....theyve fingered him...
Where did this come from??? First I’ve heard this. More info please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.