Climategate: Suing NASA
Tags: global warming.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
About time:
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal — for nearly three years — to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “Climategate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer code, and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
All of that material, and that sought for years by CEI, goes to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation, and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
The jig is up, boys and girls – I think we’re going to be able to entirely destroy the environmentalist movement.
Environmentalism was the back door for totalitarian control of our lives – unable to win at the ballot box and unable to conduct an open coup, the left used concerns about pollution to gain increasing regulatory control over our lives. Global warming was just the finishing touch – it was to be the tool whereby recalcitrant Americans were finally put in their place and forced to live short, impoverished, miserable lives while the ruling elite lived in the lap of luxury.
Well, the truth always comes out, in the end – and now we merely have to keep pressing this issue, and the whole thing will fall apart.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
34 Responses to “Climategate: Suing NASA”
Caucus of Corruption
Typical right wing, paranoid conspiracy theories.
minniehead,
hard evidence says otherwise. A coordinated effort to Intentionally falsifying data is not “conspiracy theories”.
Typical mind-numbed, useful idiot, lemming moocher talking points.
really needs to go deeper…the surface we already saw…that global warming was nothing more than a lie to force cap and trade…never any doubt there…but the real underlying problem is the socialists who have infiltrated and are now controlling government posts that will continue to influence the lives of the innocent…those whose duty it is and was to create this massive financial “crisis” that has driven the value of our currency through the floor…until we clear them out and clean house…they will hold on to thier hope and change…and continue trying to destroy our constitution…
tiredoflibbs,
Please list all of the “Hard Evidence”.
casper,
Ermmmm….those thousands of e mails which provide great detail on just how the AGW con artists manipulated the data. I know – you’ve been to lefty sites which have assured you they don’t say that, but I suggest you go and read them, yourself.
No, we’re not going to gather the info for you – we’re tired of bringing the data and then having your side just ignore it and head for the talking points some Soros-paid website provided.
Well, personally, I hope we do not destroy environmentalism, being wise stewards of the Earth is important. Unfortunately, there are way too many extremist wackos involved. Groups like Greenpeace give environmentalism a bad name.
But, I hope the AGW movement is destroyed. I have always detested how they turned every true environmental issue into something involving AGW.
Mark Noonan says:
November 25th, 2009 at 7:59 am
casper,
“Ermmmm….those thousands of e mails which provide great detail on just how the AGW con artists manipulated the data. I know – you’ve been to lefty sites which have assured you they don’t say that, but I suggest you go and read them, yourself.”
I did go to the site and read through a couple hundred of the emails. Pretty boring stuff over all, but hardly anything that proves there is a conspiracy.
“No, we’re not going to gather the info for you – we’re tired of bringing the data and then having your side just ignore it and head for the talking points some Soros-paid website provided.”
Of course you aren’t. Why would you want to take the time to back up what you say with facts, when it is so much easier to use your talking points. It’s easy to take a few emails out of context and suggest that there is a vast conspiracy. Real proof would require a lot more than what you have.
Cap,
Instead of just a blanket denial, how about if you copy and paste some of the emails that lead you to believe there was no concerted effort to manipulate the data.
In fact, I’ll post a few to get you started:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Or how about this one?
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate
What are you going to do Casper, when you finally realize that you’re worldview is built on lies?
typical libtard lip service…they uphold their false god with lies…hard evidence? GET REAL STOOGE…they are calling for congressional investigations on the FRAUD THAT YOU DEFEND…
so all we need to acknowledge is that you continue to live up to the mental midget image you have had from the start…
the issue with environmentalism is not so much taking care of our surroundings william…as much as it is the cloak that the wolf of socialist and commies wear to accomplish thier destruction…
thats about the only crisis this nation should attend too..routing the frauds who fail to do thier duty to uphold our constitution and filling those spots with those who will…
good advice
caspurr,
please do the research for the known material yourself.
This willfull ignorance your continuously portray is getting tiresome. You have no business being a teacher with this willfull ignorance attitude.
casper won’t “realize” anything because his position, such as it is, is purely emotional and not fact-dependent.
weenie engages in the single most common debate trick of the RRL—when you don’t have a position, you merely trivialize the opposition with silly dismissive comments like “paranoia” and “conspiracy” and “out of context”. They redefine the debate in terms they can then sneer at dismissively, creating straw men they can then knock down.
tiredoflibbs says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
“caspurr,
please do the research for the known material yourself.”
Why should I do research to prove your conspiracy theory? So far, all I’ve seen are a couple of emails taken out of context that is suppose to “prove” that thousands of scientists have been lying for years about global warming.
I have taken the time to go to the site and read a couple of hundred emails and I can’t say there was anything that proves a conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, I’d say it proves the opposite.
Amazona says:
November 25th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“casper won’t “realize” anything because his position, such as it is, is purely emotional and not fact-dependent.”
Projecting again? If you have so many “facts” proving a conspiracy please provide them.
“Why should I do research to prove your conspiracy theory?”
1) It’s not my conspiracy theory. “Conspiracy Theory” is a term used to discredit the scandal without trying to deny the emails existence or content.
2) For you to avoid making an a$$ of yourself with stupid questions and requests.
Tired, you nailed it. Poor casper is so incapbable of processing the written word he has become the Emily Litella of the blog, though he lacks the intellectual integrity to acknowledge his bizarre imisinterpretations with a simple “Never mind….”
I also pointed out that it was the weenie who tried to trivialize the opposition and redefine the debate by claiming that the post constituted “right wing paranoia conspiracy theories”.
We can be thankful that casper “teaches” in middle school, where the young minds he has access to will have the time to be exposed to real teachers who can correct some of the nonsense he is undoubtedly parroting.
Here is just one of hundreds of examples of dissenting scientific opinion, in spite of the lie that there is “scientific CONSENSUS” regarding AGW.
“As one example, at the South Pole, where the U.S. decades ago established a station, temperatures have actually fallen since 1957. Neither is Antarctica’s advance or retreat a new question raised by the spectre of global warming: This is the oldest scientific question of all about the Antarctic ice sheet.
Enter Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling. Dr. Wingham has been pursuing this polar puzzle for much of his professional life and, but for an accident in space, he might have had the answer at hand by now.
Dr. Wingham is Principal Scientist of the European Space Agency’s CryoSat Satellite Mission, a $130-million project designed to map changes in the depth of ice using ultra-precise instrumentation. Sadly for Dr. Wingham and for science as a whole, CryoSat fell into the Arctic Ocean after its launch in October, 2005, when a rocket launcher malfunctioned. Dr Wingham will now need to wait until 2009 before CryoSat-2, CryoSat’s even more precise successor, can launch and begin relaying the data that should conclusively determine whether Antarctica’s ice sheets are thinning or not. Apart from satellite technology, no known way exists to reliably determine changes in mass over a vast and essentially unexplorable continent covered in ice several kilometres thick.
But CryoSat was not the only satellite available to polar scientists. Dr. Wingham has been collecting satellite data for years, and arriving at startling conclusions. Early last year at a European Union Space Conference in Brussels, for example, Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening, and concluded that the spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming.
“The Antarctic Peninsula is exceptional because it juts out so far north,” Dr. Wingham told the press at the time. As well, scientists have been drawn to the peninsula because it is relatively accessible and its climate is moderate, allowing it to be more easily studied than the harsh interior of the continent. Because many scientists have been preoccupied with what was, in effect, the tip of the iceberg, they missed the mass of evidence that lay beneath the surface.
“One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled ‘the contribution of anthropogenic warming,’ ” Dr. Wingham elaborated, but the evidence is not “favourable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming”. ”
Yes, ONE OF HUNDREDS
Another:
“..To better understand the issue of climate change, including the controversies over the IPCC summary documents, the White House asked the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s premier scientific organization, to assemble a panel on climate change. The 11 members of the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled: “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).”
The press’s spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it represented “a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.” ”
This is what passes for journalism in this country……just ignore what happened and report on what you wish had happened.
tired
Typical mind-numbed, useful idiot, lemming moocher talking points.
LOL
There is no shortage of these STOOGES is there?
casper says: November 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am “Why should I do research to prove your conspiracy theory? ”
thats a very intelligent statement…why should he educate himself…after all..all he is..is a stooge and stooges are lemmings…
it would actually be a total waste of time
js, casper is, as usual, completely clueless. It should be up to the RRL lemming who accused us of believing in a conspiracy theory to illustrate his claim. casper is challenging us to prove something we never said.
I’m not sure he has that figured out yet….
cluster,
Its like clockwork – you brought the data, Casper fled to talking points. Its like the old debate about whether or not Bush lied to get us in to Iraq…
As I’ve said, if only these AGW theory proponents would have released their scientific data, it wouldn’t be a problem. Then there wouldn’t be any doubt either way. If it was real, people could replicate the experiments and check the calculations and verify it. If it was fake, people could try to replicate and re-calculate and prove it wrong. But instead they mysteriously have chosen to withhold that data.
But saying something is scientific without verifiable data behind it is not scientific. Because I’ve just done a study that suggests the world is actually flat, but you can’t see my raw data I used to draw that conclusion! You’ll just have to trust me. That’s essentially what is going on.
One more thing.
Casper,
I have taken the time to go to the site and read a couple of hundred emails and I can’t say there was anything that proves a conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, I’d say it proves the opposite.
Can you please bring attention to the parts that you think proves the opposite? It might give your view more validity here.
Amazona: “One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled ‘the contribution of anthropogenic warming,’ ” Dr. Wingham elaborated, but the evidence is not “favourable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming”.
That is certainly what the evidence from one study suggests. A more recent one suggests this: Our results suggest that over the WAIS [West Antarctic ice sheet] (especially the ASE [Amundsen Sea Embayment]) there is accelerated ice loss since around 2005 and/or 2006, with the EAIS showing correlated changes of the same sign in this period, attributed to increased ice loss over EAIS coastal regions in recent years. Using a simple linear projection for the period 2006–2009, Antarctic ice loss rate can be as large as -220+/-89 Gt yr-1. These new GRACE estimates, on average, are consistent with recent InSAR fluxes4 but, in contrast to previous estimates, they indicate that as a whole, Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise.
Why the difference? Well, one explanation is that Wingham, et. al.’s data relied on estimates based on altimetry (i.e., the height of the ice/snow), which is a much better measure of ice/snow volume than density: as everyone knows, snow is far less dense (and far more variable in density) than ice. GRACE data is gravimetric data, which is essentially a direct measurement of mass, and therefore density. Why does that matter? Because ice, being considerably more dense than snow, generates considerably more liquid water when it melts.
Just FYI, when interpreting polar/anti-polar ice data studies you first have to know what kind of variable(s) are being discussed: extent (i.e., the surface area covered), volume (i.e. the thickness of the ice/snow), and/or density (i.e., the actual amount of water involved). It’s also very important to know whether they’re talking about sea ice, land ice, or some combination. The reason is that melting sea ice does not appreciably change sea levels — much like ice cubes melting in a glass of water do not change the level of the liquid water. When land ice melts, it does — much like adding ice to the glass of water.
I hesitate to add the following, due to the complexity it adds, but what the heck, here goes…
Often a given individual study concentrates on one variable (or a limited number of them) in one context (or a limited number of them). However, the discussion (conclusion) section of the article the authors are allowed to extrapolate beyond their data to a certain extent. The basic idea is to stimulate further study by presenting your ideas about where further examination might lead. Often it is those extrapolations that are picked up by the popular press and made into more than those in the scientific community would attribute to them.
Observer20: Can you please bring attention to the parts that you think proves the opposite? It might give your view more validity here.
Allow me to field that question (sorry, Casper, if I’m stepping on your toes). First, the important consideration is to prove the point, not to prove the opposite. Surely you appreciate that, right?
So, what is your definition of a “trick”? In other words, does it necessarily imply a level of deception, even if used in an informal setting? I would say no. How about you? My feeling is that there are many ways to present data, and more are being invented all the time. We call them “ticks”, but it’s not about being deceptive, it’s about presenting information content in an easy-to-understand way.
Personally, the aspect of the email stream that concerns me most are the ones from Dr. Jones, where he tries to get his colleagues to delete email correspondence relating to something — presumably his views on how to deal with FOI requests. That strikes me as disturbing, especially considering my feeling that they would be well-served by making every effort to make the data freely available. In fact, I think all of science would be well-served by that. But I appreciate that: (a) it goes against tradition, and perhaps more importantly; (b) would be very expensive. And it should be noted that at least as a first approximation, those things are mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, other obligations prevent me from explaining why they are.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!
people have demanded facts from the start…that never came…what is there to prove beyond these emails demonstrate that the facts never existed?
Interesting article here on global warming
rico and flimflam, will you two please turn out the compact flourescent lights in the global warming tent when everyone else has left? byw, loved this post from the article flimflam referenced:
So what did I say to become ‘people like you’? I’m not fervent. I am a lifelong atheist with a never-ending interest in science, BUT I don’t believe in man-made global warming, so I am ‘people like you’. What’s up with that? You ARE the problem, the fervent one; where anyone not on the bandwagon is the enemy. These scientists committed wilful fraud! Wilful! They slanted the football field and deserve to be kicked out of the stadium. That’s what ‘people like me’ think.
cluster: rico and flimflam, will you two please turn out the compact flourescent lights in the global warming tent when everyone else has left?
You betcha. Lol!
ricorun,
Well, I interpreted Casper’s wording in a way which meant that he felt the content of the e-mails supported the hypothesis that there was no conspiracy. To me, a conspiracy is any underhanded plan involving two or more people. The correspondence of these e-mails suggests that several people were party to a conspiracy to cover up data they evaluated in their experiment. Granted, these are just e-mails, so they are not 100% certain, but they are about as certain as we can get without having pictures or a man “on the inside,” so to speak.
As to the “ticks” being simply easier ways of expressing data, and assuming you believe the cases in question were just dialogues of how to display these “ticks,” I find that view to be too trusting. You cannot say for certain these were just ticks. Granted, nor can I say it was definitely a conspiracy. You know what would clear it all up? If they release their original data in its entirety.
But it is folly to underestimate the destructive capability of the tool opponents of AGW theory have just been handed.
Observer20: You know what would clear it all up? If they release their original data in its entirety.
On that point we are in agreement. So, where will the money to do that come from? And how far should the concept be applied?
But it is folly to underestimate the destructive capability of the tool opponents of AGW theory have just been handed.
What tool would that be?
I also accept your larger point that we don’t know from these emails whether any conspiracy took place or whether anyone doctored any data. That’s been my point as well. There are a lot more dots that need connecting before such a conclusion could be arrived at. Right now, all there is is evidence of a few scientists behaving badly in private emails. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the aspect I find most troubling is Dr. Jones attempting to get his colleagues to delete emails regarding discussions of what to do about FOI requests. But the fact that those discussions are still there suggest he wasn’t very successful in that endeavor.
ricorun,
On that point we are in agreement. So, where will the money to do that come from? And how far should the concept be applied?
I do not know how we would get the money. All I know is that it is wrong and unscientific to assume a study is valid without any ability to replicate it. And on that issue, it is a shame that science and politics have come to cross paths. If monetary interests block the scientific method from being observed, the experiment should not be done, or at least not accepted as true science.
What tool would that be?
These emails. Perhaps opponents are overstating their meaning to an extent, but now they can use these to show people who aren’t “in the know” about things about how underhanded the AGW community is. Sort of the antithesis of those emotional “you’re killing all the polar bears!” arguments some AGW proponents use. They have the potential to turn around the entire outlook on global warming. Of course, it’s already been starting to turn around due to people perceiving lower temperatures and no great apocalypse.