What's become known as "Climate-gate" involving Phil Jones of the CRU, may be about to explode right here at home. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has threatened a lawsuit against NASA by the end of this year if the agency doesn't honor his Freedom of Information (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 manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). "These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
NASA has been stonewalling any effort to obtain their climate data for over two years blaming oil and coal companies for trying to discredit their reports. Jim Hanson of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not only refused to release his data to global warming naysayers but to other researchers as well; a curious strategy for someone that claims to have found the smoking gun linking global warming to the activities of man. One must remember that even though they wear the NASA logo, the GISS is located in the liberal bastion of Colombia University, one of Obama’s support centers for his socialist and globalist policies. Through Columbia’s collection of think tanks on public policy and political science, they have collectively endorsed nearly every ideological pursuit of this President and his radical inner circle of czars.
Hanson and NASA may have a good reason to try to shift public attention away from their “work” and onto the people that question the science behind the claims of global warming; after all….
1- NASA’s 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 despite authoritative climate data collected by other government agencies that refute those claims.
2- 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.
3- 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.
4- 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.
Is Hansen, like his British counterpart Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, trying to "hide the decline" in temperatures, asks the Investor’s Business Daily? 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, asks IBD?
Michael Mann was also implicated in the Climate-gate scandal, his name appearing in messages from Phil Jones, suggesting that damaging e-mails and data be deleted before any Freedom of Information Act requests could be processed. Fortunately for the western world, those scandalous e-mails were released by a yet, unknown, whistleblower. Mann’s e-mails contain his ideas to discredit skeptics of global warming by downgrading the status of scientific journals that publish dissenting views. The idea being that if those journals are no longer considered “peer reviews” then the dissenting views no longer possess scientific credibility.
Mann is an Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. Much of Mann’s work including his famous “hockey stick graphs” appeared prominently in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. Sources claim that Mann specifically selected tree rings that enhanced his theory of global warming and ignored those that didn’t fit his climate model. The “hockey stick” graph that showed a sharp rise in global temperatures beginning with the industrial revolution is apparently the result of the careful selection of data to reinforce a pre-determined model and is not a graph based on the actual compilation of data from a complete and unfiltered source.
While NOAA’s data disproves many of NASA’s climate reports, they are not completely innocent themselves. NOAA recently removed satellite data input into their model of ocean temperatures and boasted that the move showed an immediate jump of two tenths of a degree Celsius in ocean temperature readings. Somehow, NOAA does not see the exclusion of real data previously used to refine the accuracy of their computer model as manipulation. I find that troubling that since the importation of real data did not show the warming they predicted, they simply stopped using real data. In fact, some evidence has recently appeared that indicates that NOAA embarked on its own mission to silence climate critics using Mann’s idea of discrediting peer reviews that contain contradictory analysis.
So why would government agencies intentionally misrepresent scientific data? Well, the economy has certainly turned the heat up on law makers to trim the Federal budget. Now that climate alarmists like Al Gore, The IPCC and the UN have stated how sweeping climate initiatives are key to the survival of the planet; any government agency that performs climate research is guaranteed billions in funding at a time when they would ordinarily be struggling to validate their very existence. Funding, like drugs, can make the addict say or do anything to guarantee another dose and an agencies research that supports a President’s chosen agenda is likely to receive more funding that those results that do not.
Then there are the Phil Jones’s, the James Hanson’s and the Michael Mann’s of the world. Their religious devotion to the theory of global warming is obviously no longer a search for truth; it is however, the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Climate change skeptics, in their eyes, are heretics that must confess their sins or be destroyed. The Church imprisoned Galileo for the rest of his life because his science disputed established doctrine. He looked through his newly created telescope and saw moons orbiting Saturn. Church teachings said that the Earth was the center of the Universe but Galileo speculated that this could not be true if moons were circling other planets. Much like the CRU or the IPCC, the Church was not interested in Galileo’s evidence or in a true understanding of the Universe; they were interesting in preserving the unchallenged power the Church held over the people for centuries. If Galileo were not a man with great reputation he would most certainly have been killed for his beliefs. Instead, the Church chose to destroy Galileo’s evidence and secluded him in an attempt to prevent his ideas from spreading. Hmmm? That sounds familiar.
I am all for clean air and pure water but if we are chasing red herrings based on false science aren’t we diverting needed resources away from addressing real hazards? There is nothing in the Copenhagen proposals or in our own Climate Bill that does anything about the climate. It does take $145 Trillion dollars from western industrial nations and gives it to developing nations in what can only be called a “global welfare scheme”. No, this is not about pollution or global warming; this is just more socialist philanthropy. Capitalist philanthropy is the when the wealthy offer some of what they have earned as a gift to the society that allowed them to succeed. Socialist philanthropy, like the philanthropy of our own Democratic Party, is the perverse habit of governement leaders to hand out gifts of everyone else’s money. I suppose that’s a lot more palatable than using their own money but it just doesn’t seem as noble, now does it?
Paul
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," says Horner, who suspects, based on the public record, the same type of data manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). "These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
NASA has been stonewalling any effort to obtain their climate data for over two years blaming oil and coal companies for trying to discredit their reports. Jim Hanson of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has not only refused to release his data to global warming naysayers but to other researchers as well; a curious strategy for someone that claims to have found the smoking gun linking global warming to the activities of man. One must remember that even though they wear the NASA logo, the GISS is located in the liberal bastion of Colombia University, one of Obama’s support centers for his socialist and globalist policies. Through Columbia’s collection of think tanks on public policy and political science, they have collectively endorsed nearly every ideological pursuit of this President and his radical inner circle of czars.
Hanson and NASA may have a good reason to try to shift public attention away from their “work” and onto the people that question the science behind the claims of global warming; after all….
1- NASA’s 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 despite authoritative climate data collected by other government agencies that refute those claims.
2- 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.
3- 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.
4- 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.
Is Hansen, like his British counterpart Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, trying to "hide the decline" in temperatures, asks the Investor’s Business Daily? 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, asks IBD?
Michael Mann was also implicated in the Climate-gate scandal, his name appearing in messages from Phil Jones, suggesting that damaging e-mails and data be deleted before any Freedom of Information Act requests could be processed. Fortunately for the western world, those scandalous e-mails were released by a yet, unknown, whistleblower. Mann’s e-mails contain his ideas to discredit skeptics of global warming by downgrading the status of scientific journals that publish dissenting views. The idea being that if those journals are no longer considered “peer reviews” then the dissenting views no longer possess scientific credibility.
Mann is an Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. Much of Mann’s work including his famous “hockey stick graphs” appeared prominently in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. Sources claim that Mann specifically selected tree rings that enhanced his theory of global warming and ignored those that didn’t fit his climate model. The “hockey stick” graph that showed a sharp rise in global temperatures beginning with the industrial revolution is apparently the result of the careful selection of data to reinforce a pre-determined model and is not a graph based on the actual compilation of data from a complete and unfiltered source.
While NOAA’s data disproves many of NASA’s climate reports, they are not completely innocent themselves. NOAA recently removed satellite data input into their model of ocean temperatures and boasted that the move showed an immediate jump of two tenths of a degree Celsius in ocean temperature readings. Somehow, NOAA does not see the exclusion of real data previously used to refine the accuracy of their computer model as manipulation. I find that troubling that since the importation of real data did not show the warming they predicted, they simply stopped using real data. In fact, some evidence has recently appeared that indicates that NOAA embarked on its own mission to silence climate critics using Mann’s idea of discrediting peer reviews that contain contradictory analysis.
So why would government agencies intentionally misrepresent scientific data? Well, the economy has certainly turned the heat up on law makers to trim the Federal budget. Now that climate alarmists like Al Gore, The IPCC and the UN have stated how sweeping climate initiatives are key to the survival of the planet; any government agency that performs climate research is guaranteed billions in funding at a time when they would ordinarily be struggling to validate their very existence. Funding, like drugs, can make the addict say or do anything to guarantee another dose and an agencies research that supports a President’s chosen agenda is likely to receive more funding that those results that do not.
Then there are the Phil Jones’s, the James Hanson’s and the Michael Mann’s of the world. Their religious devotion to the theory of global warming is obviously no longer a search for truth; it is however, the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Climate change skeptics, in their eyes, are heretics that must confess their sins or be destroyed. The Church imprisoned Galileo for the rest of his life because his science disputed established doctrine. He looked through his newly created telescope and saw moons orbiting Saturn. Church teachings said that the Earth was the center of the Universe but Galileo speculated that this could not be true if moons were circling other planets. Much like the CRU or the IPCC, the Church was not interested in Galileo’s evidence or in a true understanding of the Universe; they were interesting in preserving the unchallenged power the Church held over the people for centuries. If Galileo were not a man with great reputation he would most certainly have been killed for his beliefs. Instead, the Church chose to destroy Galileo’s evidence and secluded him in an attempt to prevent his ideas from spreading. Hmmm? That sounds familiar.
I am all for clean air and pure water but if we are chasing red herrings based on false science aren’t we diverting needed resources away from addressing real hazards? There is nothing in the Copenhagen proposals or in our own Climate Bill that does anything about the climate. It does take $145 Trillion dollars from western industrial nations and gives it to developing nations in what can only be called a “global welfare scheme”. No, this is not about pollution or global warming; this is just more socialist philanthropy. Capitalist philanthropy is the when the wealthy offer some of what they have earned as a gift to the society that allowed them to succeed. Socialist philanthropy, like the philanthropy of our own Democratic Party, is the perverse habit of governement leaders to hand out gifts of everyone else’s money. I suppose that’s a lot more palatable than using their own money but it just doesn’t seem as noble, now does it?
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment