The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall

By on 5.27.10 @ 10:57AM

This morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is filing suit against NASA, calling the erstwhile space agency to account for its nearly three-year stonewall of access to internal documents exposing an abuse of taxpayer funds to advance the global warming agenda.

Along the way to this point, we have begun revealing how NASA is running a third-party advocacy website out of NASA facilities, at taxpayer expense, to assail “skeptics” and promote the highly suspect basis for a specific policy agenda. This campaign also helped to elevate the particular fiefdom in question (James Hansen’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS) in terms of budget and stature. It has also elevated the scientists involved, professionally, at the expense of the taxpayer they are working to stick with the biggest economic intervention in our history (one I detail in my new book “Power Grab”).

In this process, if only thanks to pressure on NASA after a December 2009 news story about their games, we have already obtained important emails among 2,000 or so pages released. These include an admission to USA Today’s weather editor that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, using the temperature record of …CRU, the ClimateGate outfit. That means their “independent temperature record” is actually a recapitulation of one that …doesn’t exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data.

So whether the CRU claims were actually made up, as seems entirely plausible reading that crowd’s own nasty anti-scientific campaign in their own words, it is as good as made up, meaning non-existent, for any legal or scientific purpose. So we already know that two of the four supposed “independent temperature records” are down the drain. And they’re the only two subjected to anything resembling scrutiny.

Also along the way, in recent months we won on administrative appeal after NASA denied that documents created and held on NASA assets were really agency records, if editing and managing a third-party activist and advocacy site, RealClimate.org. NASA originally denied access to the records (which they are still withholding) on the grounds that taxpayer-funded scientists were actually moonlighting and so the documents were not really the government’s property.

Our suit seeks to finally compel production of these records, among other documents the public paid for, are owed access to, but for years have been denied.

View all comments (50) |

Tom| 5.27.10 @ 1:34PM

There is really no question that Gavin engaged in 3rd party advocacy on the public dime. For years the vast majority of is Realclimte posts were during normal working hours. Of course when people finally started pointing that out Realclimate stopped time stamping Gavin and other moderators posts.

PHYSICS MSC| 5.27.10 @ 2:55PM

Tom wrote: "Of course when people finally started pointing that out Realclimate stopped time stamping Gavin and other moderators posts."

This is the point when what started as inappropriate use of an employers resources for personal business, moves to becoming a criminal conspiracy and ongoig effort to defraud the taxpayer.

The FBI should be investigating this, and criminal charges need to be filed agains Gavin and Hansen.

John Blake| 5.27.10 @ 3:23PM

Ducking stools, public stocks, even whipping posts would be more benign punishment than that inflicted on taxpayers by this peculating Green Gang of hysterics conspiring in bad faith, under false pretenses, to enact Global Governance as a perpetual meal-ticket in accord with their crass and vulgar entitlement proclivities.

Ed Darrell | 5.27.10 @ 11:04PM

Who is Competitive Enterprise Institute to be doing this? They support quacks on medical issues like malaria -- why should we think they've got noble intent here? Who funds this group? Is it Astroturf?

Markus | 5.27.10 @ 11:23PM

The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is a comprehensive global surface baseline climate data set designed to be used to monitor and detect climate change. Comprised of surface station observations of temperature, precipitation, and pressure, all GHCN data are on a monthly basis. GHCN is produced jointly by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is a long known fact that GISS uses and remodels NCDC data. Their remodelling results in stronger global warming compared to NCDC and HadCRUT

Tom| 5.28.10 @ 12:28PM

"The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is a comprehensive global surface baseline climate data set designed to be used to monitor and detect climate change. "

Oh what a load of crap. Airport weather stations which make a large share of the network were never EVER intended to monitor global climate. There are there for one purpose and one purpose alone for pilots to calculate lift! There were never intended to be used to construct a global temperature.

Hugh| 5.29.10 @ 10:02AM

"...why should we think they've [CEI] got noble intent here?"

So on a post reporting a taxpayer funded organization stonewalling against complying with the Freedom of Information Act, you consider it helpful to your hide-the-decline-team to raise the question of noble intent? Maybe we could save some time by first exploring the topic of irony.

Ed Darrell | 5.29.10 @ 9:32PM

As someone who four times swore the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (they don't let you unswear it on the way out), and as a former FOIA officer, and as a former reporter, I look at these things through a sharper lens than you may have, Hugh.

First, there are no data any part of NASA has on climate that isn't publicly available elsewhere, generally easier. Were CEI in the business of doing science -- and they are not -- they could get the data they demand through FOI requests, for free, quicker and cheaper.

So I see this as a nuisance suit against NASA. NASA, the agency that put men on the Moon and brought them back safely. Sure, there have been problems at NASA, but generally its populated by the noblest of people and it had earned its reputation as perhaps the noblest of government agencies.

Hide the decline? Clearly you didn't read the e-mails. They didn't hide any decline. They substituted actual temperature readings to replace known to be erroroneous data, to make a chart. The chart predicted rising temperatures, on average, over the next century or so.

You claim there was a decline? What planet have you been on? Or, whose payroll are you propagandizing for? The time you claim there was a decline includes three of the warmest years in history and the warmest decade on history.

Decline? Yeah, like the rise in housing prices we've suffered from this past two years.

Irony? You intentionally broke your irony meter, so you don't see it in the claim that temperatures declined in the late 1990s, and that anyone hid them.

All you need is a thermometer to tell that CEI's claims are bogus.

FOI suits are civil, so there's no great criminal penalty for plaintiffs making false charges. But CEI will be expected to come into court with clean hands. Can they? It's a reasonable question.

And clearly, you think they can't answer it to the judge's satisfaction. Why do you hide behind disinformation, instead of just answering the question, if you know? Who funds CEI?

John A| 5.30.10 @ 6:25AM

A fabulous piece of 100% RealClimate Denialism from Ed Darrell.

For those of us who have studied the evidence, read the emails, gone through the math, cross-checked the references, Ed's denialism is nauseating and intellectually insulting.

"Hiding the Decline" was not replacing data known to be erroneous but was about deleting data which conflicted with the reconstructed temperature record because the proxies failed calibration. In other words, the proxies undoubtedly had a spurious correlation with temperature before that point.

Hiding disconfirming data while denying that you had done the hiding is one of the most serious forms of scientific misconduct.

Its not surprising that real denialists like Ed Darrell try to twist the historical record because that's what Schmidt, Mann, Jones and Co have been doing for many years.

NASA put men on the moon but not by pretending that failed experiments were really successes and not by misconduct and lies like those perpetrated by GISS.

Its an open secret that many NASA scientists are appalled by the behavior of Hansen and Schmidt bringing unjustified harm to the good name of NASA. Hansen's former boss, John Theon, made that abundently clear.

Ed Darrell | 5.30.10 @ 7:50AM

John, I resent the bad faith you represent. If you had any science to back your points, why isn't it in evidence?

Your reliance on the proceeds of theft to impugn the reputations of good scientists is astoundingly bad taste. Where are Arthur Watkins, Ralph Flanders and Margeret Smith when we need them?

For those of use who have studied the evidence, especially those of us with any experience in criminal law, chasing down bad guys, there is not a shred of evidence in those e-mails to suggest any wrong-doing on the parts of any scientist -- except a few denialists on your side. The scientists accused by you have been investigated 8 ways from heaven, and they have been cleared by their universities, by the House of Commons, and by legal authorities in the U.S.

Despite several investigations, the only wrong-doing clear is the stealing of the e-mails, the theft upon which your entire case shakily stands.

If you are nauseated by the facts, you're in the wrong business.

If you had the facts, were God's weather and climate on your side, why the larceny and yoru sole dependence on it?

There was no decline in temperatures. Contrary to John's assertions, temperatures around the globe did not decline in the 1990s, nor especially in the first decade of the 21st century -- the one now called the hottest in history.

And you accuse me of denialism?

John said: "Hiding disconfirming data while denying that you had done the hiding is one of the most serious forms of scientific misconduct."

But of course, there was no disconfirming data. The data discarded indicated 1998 would be cooler than average -- John, is that your testimony? You stand on falsehoods?

Accuracy is a virtue. Misunderstanding science is not a sin, but it's ugly when coupled with ill-informed belligerence, such as that directed against the scientists.

What history has been "twisted?" John argues that a chart should have been presented to the public showing declining temperatures around the world since 1995.

Where are those declining temperatures, John? Show us -- we're enough from Missouri on this issue not to be misled by lack of data.

What misconduct do you claim at GISS? They at least don't go telling completely fictional tales about you, insisting that you should have lied when you knew better.

I still can't get over this obvious error: John, 1998 was not among the coolest years in the past 50. Surely you know that. Anyone can Google it. Even the harshest denialists have admitted that 1998 was not cool.

And yet, you claim these scientists were wrong to eliminate from their charts data that would have incorrectly portrayed 1998 as cool.

It's no secret that opposition to doing anything ab0out warming is purely political. It's less well known that doing nothing will cripple our economy, and play into the hands of those who wish to see China and India eclipsing the U.S. economically, scientifically and technologically.

When people insist that error must be perpetuated, we need to ask: Whose side are they on?

David| 5.30.10 @ 1:20PM

I have learned to ignore ad hominum attacks from both sides of the debate. However I can say one thing from personal experience, which is that the primary mission of FOIA officers is to keep information out of the hands of requesters.

I would not take seriously the holier than thou attitude of a former FOIA officer. A cursory browsing of Public Citizen's web site on FOIA will make this quite clear.

John A| 5.30.10 @ 2:20PM

The Tiresome Bore, Ed Darrell whines:

"John, I resent the bad faith you represent. If you had any science to back your points, why isn't it in evidence? "

I do have plenty of science to back up my claims, but unfortunately you're not able to accept them because they conflict with your irrationalist worldview.

"Your reliance on the proceeds of theft to impugn the reputations of good scientists is astoundingly bad taste. "

Except that the emails were not stolen, they were leaked. And its irrelevant to the issue of what those emails revealed: criminal conduct that was only unprosecuted because of a ridiculously short statute of limitations - that's what the Information Commissioner said and reported to Parliament.

They weren't good scientists at all - they were involved in a clear conspiracy to subvert the peer review process and destroy data that they did not own.

"For those of use who have studied the evidence, especially those of us with any experience in criminal law, chasing down bad guys, there is not a shred of evidence in those e-mails to suggest any wrong-doing on the parts of any scientist -- except a few denialists on your side. The scientists accused by you have been investigated 8 ways from heaven, and they have been cleared by their universities, by the House of Commons, and by legal authorities in the U.S. "

Untrue. They have been "investigated" by the very people whose jobs depend on not finding any evidence of criminal behaviour. Of course, when an actual prosecutor asks for evidence, you scream "witchhunt". They have yet to be investigated under subpoena.

"Despite several investigations, the only wrong-doing clear is the stealing of the e-mails, the theft upon which your entire case shakily stands. "

Demonstrably untrue. The authorities already know that criminal conduct has been revealed and only a technicality prevented prosecution. In other circumstances, the leaking of incriminating evidence from inside the organization would be called the act of a "whistleblower" but in the bizarro world of RealClimate Denialism, its theft.

" If you are nauseated by the facts, you're in the wrong business."

I'm not nauseated by the facts, I'm nauseated by the intellectual dishonesty of those who excuse criminal conduct and rampant scientific misconduct.

"If you had the facts, were God's weather and climate on your side, why the larceny and yoru sole dependence on it?"

It's called whistleblowing and it came from within CRU. Get over it.

"There was no decline in temperatures. Contrary to John's assertions, temperatures around the globe did not decline in the 1990s, nor especially in the first decade of the 21st century -- the one now called the hottest in history. "

And we're straight back to RealClimate Denialism - make up an argument never made and fling it wildly.

The decline wasn't in the temperatures of the 1990s and 2000s but in the proxies that should have tracked those temperatures but failed to do so. A failure of calibration that renders those proxies unlikely to track the temperatures before the temperature record.

" And you accuse me of denialism?

Yep. Clear and systematic inability to take on disconfirming evidence into your irrationalist worldview.

John said: "Hiding disconfirming data while denying that you had done the hiding is one of the most serious forms of scientific misconduct."

"But of course, there was no disconfirming data. The data discarded indicated 1998 would be cooler than average -- John, is that your testimony? You stand on falsehoods? "

Nope. The proxies do not reproduce temperature. Can't get that into your thick skull, can you Ed?

Ed waffles on in the same bizarro way for quite a while as if the rest of us are idiots.

" Accuracy is a virtue. Misunderstanding science is not a sin, but it's ugly when coupled with ill-informed belligerence, such as that directed against the scientists."

Nope. The misunderstanding is entirely on your part. The temperature record produced by CRU cannot be traced back to its source and is therefore worthless. Jones admitted he had lost the raw data.

"What history has been "twisted?" John argues that a chart should have been presented to the public showing declining temperatures around the world since 1995."

See above. You can't get it because you're in deep denial.

"Where are those declining temperatures, John? Show us -- we're enough from Missouri on this issue not to be misled by lack of data."

See above. You can't get it because you're in deep denial.

"What misconduct do you claim at GISS? They at least don't go telling completely fictional tales about you, insisting that you should have lied when you knew better."

We don't know that GISS is producing any data of any value - hence the FOIA requests that NASA GISS is stonewalling. An extensive examination of the surface record of the US used heavily by the GISS is 90% contaminated by heating biases which overwhelm any of the supposed "signal"

"I still can't get over this obvious error: John, 1998 was not among the coolest years in the past 50. Surely you know that. Anyone can Google it. Even the harshest denialists have admitted that 1998 was not cool.

And yet, you claim these scientists were wrong to eliminate from their charts data that would have incorrectly portrayed 1998 as cool. "

Irrelevant and boring. The proxies failed to calibrate with temperature - the proxies therefore cannot be relied upon to reproduce the climate of the past. Your use of misdirection is transparent and insulting.

It ain't the satellite data that's in trouble, its the temperature record using spurious proxies which supposedly proves that the warming of the 1990s was unique and unprecedented.
End of story. End of discussion. Back to your Denialist Cave, Ed.

Hugh| 5.30.10 @ 2:42PM

Thanks for the feedback Ed. Unsuprisingly, written in the true spirit of a die-hard beauracrat and reporter. Evidently some former reporters and beauracrats don't unswear that observance either. So it might come as a surpise that I have chosen to quote Newsweek (noted champions of liberal media and politics) to respond to your stroll down memory lane:
"The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause."

I'm confident a crack beauracrat and reporter such as yourself witnessed abundant examples of such activity on your beat Ed.

"Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports—including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies."

"Newspaper reports?" Certainly reporters wouldn't publish unchecked data would they Ed? I find it hard to beleive that you would do that Ed because, well...well....you've taken an oath to uphold the constitution..and not once but several impressive times. Still, there it is in Newsweek. As a former reporter, I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with a peer.
And as a beauracrat, you certainly must have first-hand experience with political bodies using unchecked reporting (a reporter for Newsweek words, not mine) to formulate opinion based on faulty data that impacts the lives of millions. I can only envy your position of reporting unchecked facts and then taking them as gospel to formulate/enforce public policy. It's a win/win for Ed...and doesn't that take back seat to "saving" the planet?

"Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments."

Wow Ed...that's exactly what you did in your first comment...spoooooky. Were you a former climate scientist as well?

"When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC’s prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC’s powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as “voodoo science.” Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as “anti-Enlightenment” and engaging in “witch hunts.”"

Starting to see a pattern here - And it must be true...it was written by a reporter.....just like you Ed.
Newsweek made my case so I suggest forwarding any further comments to them. Be sure and provide them with your reporter/beauracrat credentials. They might actually consider them as an attribute rather than a detriment. However, if you can't control your impulse to always be seen as correct about everything and decide to reply to this commenter, I won't be responding further - I've found it to be a waste of my time attempting to reason with folks that would rather be seen as being right than being right.
I hope your memorial day weekend has been as enjoyable as mine Ed.

Nobama| 5.31.10 @ 7:18PM

Thank God for defenders of truth; our Republic will surely perish if we do not oppose Leftists' lies.

Useful idiots like Ed would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 6:43AM

John said: I do have plenty of science to back up my claims, but unfortunately you're not able to accept them because they conflict with your irrationalist worldview.

Then please cite for me any study done that says DDT does not thin the shells of birds. And, caution, you'd better be sure, because most sources that make this claim rely on bogus claims.

I'm not the one making irrational claims here. My claims stand on the reports of the National Academy of Sciences, EPA, two separate federal trial courts and two appellate courts, and continuing research to this day. I'm relying on the findings of the American Cancer Society, a generally trustworthy group.

Show us your stuff.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.1.10 @ 1:27PM

Your STUFF is bogus, moron; your lies and deceit have been exposed and you've been discredited. You clowns are lucky you're not being criminally prosecuted.

Only 40% of likely voters now believe in Globaloney Warming. Sorry.

All together now...."Hide the decline..."

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 6:49AM

Untrue. They have been "investigated" by the very people whose jobs depend on not finding any evidence of criminal behaviour. Of course, when an actual prosecutor asks for evidence, you scream "witchhunt". They have yet to be investigated under subpoena.

The ethics group at Penn State has a job to track down ethical violations and punish. Their job is not to promote research. Your characterization of them is unfair, and wrong.

The job of the House of Commons is to get the facts right, then make good policy -- they have no incentive to cover up incorrect research, or unethical research, and every reason to uncover it and prosecute it.

What investigation is it you claim is not straight up?

What error do you allege? You ask for a subpoena, but you have not made a specific charge that any error was made. Tell us what research was fudged. Be specific. Tell us the paper, and what the correct answer should have been.

Don't slander good people in a fog of "I don't know for sure, but I don't like them, politically." That is, of course, the definition of a McCarthyist witch hunt. You want a subpoena like Joe McCarthy? We don't do witch hunts any more. Tell us the specific charges.

We don't trample the Constitution just because a few don't like what science finds.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.1.10 @ 1:40PM

Not only do you nitwits trample on the Constitution, you use it for toilet paper.

It's amusing that liberals whine and cry about a "witch hunt" when they're caught lying and cheating.

I'd prefer tar and feathering you treasonous bastards myself.

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 6:55AM

I said: "There was no decline in temperatures. Contrary to John's assertions, temperatures around the globe did not decline in the 1990s, nor especially in the first decade of the 21st century -- the one now called the hottest in history. "

John replied: [quote]And we're straight back to RealClimate Denialism - make up an argument never made and fling it wildly.

The decline wasn't in the temperatures of the 1990s and 2000s but in the proxies that should have tracked those temperatures but failed to do so. A failure of calibration that renders those proxies unlikely to track the temperatures before the temperature record. [end quote]

They took out the proxies that didn't work, John. They put in real data that was accurate. Why do you insist that they should have left in proxy data known to be inaccurate, just to make a chart?

Why do you insist that the chart be inaccurate? That would be illegal under U.S. law, you know.

What sort of conspiracy are YOU engaged in, pushing for illegal reports in science?

Accuracy is always the better choice. The scientists making the graph wisely, ethically, and legally chose to show the real events.

That's not a crime. That deserves a medal. And shame on you for slandering those people.

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 6:58AM

Someone said: [quote]Useful idiots like Ed would make Joseph Goebbels proud. [end quote]

You should study history. Goebbels response to serious dissent was a gun, or a rope (or in France, the guillotine).

Am I wrong? Show me the data.

You don't have data, so you raise false charges, trying to connect me with an evil guy from the past.

You don't know the past. The Ghost of Santayana paces nervously.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.1.10 @ 1:35PM

Tell a lie repeatedly for a long enough time and eventually it becomes truth.

You and that "evil guy" have a lot in common--brute force will come next. We know who and what you are, Fascist.

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 8:06AM

Someone said: [QUOTE]"When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC’s prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC’s powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as “voodoo science.” Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as “anti-Enlightenment” and engaging in “witch hunts.”" [END QUOTE]

That's false.

IPCC investigated the typo in the glacier section. They even apologized for it. But the facts remain that the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting faster than they can be replenished, at the fastest rate ever recorded. The good news is that they shouldn't be exhausted until 2350 -- we get an additional 315 years, though with much reduced water, as populations rise.

see Cosmos magazine:
http:SLASHSLASHwwwDOTcosmosmagazineDOTcom/news/3250/ipcc-glacier-forecast-regrettable-error

See the IPCC report on the issue (yeah, go to the horse's mouth):
http:SLASHSLASHwwwDOTipccDOTch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.1.10 @ 1:31PM

Fast Eddy cares WAY TOO MUCH! Must be a pot of gold waiting for him at the end of that Globaloney Warming BS scheme.

Too bad, you're going to have to "work" for a living, nitwit.

Crawl back under the rock you call home, liar.

Tom| 6.1.10 @ 1:39PM

Its funny that this Mr. Ed thinks that he can filibuster everything without ever making much of a point. Let me speak in better terms that the readers can read and understand before Ed blows his top again and writes more than anyone truly cares to read while making no point at all.

We have temperature records back to around 1890. We cannot produce a reliable proxy method for tree rings when checked with this data. Regardless of the method used the raw temperature data and the proxy reconstruction diverge. This means that tree rings are not a viable temperature proxy. They are about as reliable for determining the temperature of the past as phernology is for finding what ails you.

Mr. Ed has like to point a few times that the data(no Mr. Ed not the data the proxy method) shows that 1998 was cold. And he is right but also wrong because the doesn’t understand what the hell he is saying. Unless you believe that the 1970s were colder than the little ice age tree rings are worthless temperature proxies.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.1.10 @ 1:44PM

You're an American patriot, Tom. Thank you.

Ed's a propagandist, just another useful idiot for the Progressive Marxists in our midst.

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 2:38PM

[QUOTE]We have temperature records back to around 1890. We cannot produce a reliable proxy method for tree rings when checked with this data. [END QUOTE]

So, then, why do you insist that Mann should have used proxy data that showed a downturn in temperature in the 1990s?

You're complaining that they didn't predict the temperature low enough in 1998.

Were you a Cub Scout, I'd take you out to show you, again, how to read a thermometer. Are you less practiced than a Cub Scout, or just more pathologically in denial?

Jeremiah| 6.1.10 @ 3:15PM

I wouldn't let my Cub Scout any where near you, pervo.

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 2:43PM

[QUOTE]Still, there it is in Newsweek. As a former reporter, I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with a peer.[END QUOTE]

What's in Newsweek? I love how you guys make claims that scientists have been 'proven wrong,' but when I challenge you to cite the proof, you don't even know what it is you allege they are wrong about.

You're not even wrong. Are you working to prove the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Ed Darrell | 6.1.10 @ 2:48PM

[QUOTE]Mr. Ed has like to point a few times that the data(no Mr. Ed not the data the proxy method) shows that 1998 was cold. And he is right but also wrong because the doesn’t understand what the hell he is saying. Unless you believe that the 1970s were colder than the little ice age tree rings are worthless temperature proxies. [END QUOTE]

I do understand this, which you haven't denied: It's stupid to claim that any graph made in 1995 should have shown worldwide temperatures would decline in 1996 through 2001.

And yet, you're claiming good scientists committed "criminal" acts for not defrauding us like that.

I understand that only suckers join the Friends of Ponzi, as a rule. Are you a sucker, or is there some mysticism you know that has turned the universe on its ear?

Why do you advocate scientists should have shown false projections that were wrong, as we now know well?

Darwin didn't know why Lord Kelvin was wrong about his projections for the age of the planet. It was not fraud on Darwin's part to agree with Lord Kelvin in error.

It ain't fraud if it's true and accurate.

Tom| 6.1.10 @ 3:07PM

No Mr. Ed you still dont get the point. Mann, Briffa and all the rest shouldn't have used tree rings at all. They are not a viable temperature proxy.

By not showing the decline they were attempting to create a false sense that their reconstructions were accurate to those who read the IPCC reports. Even a laymen can see that if the reconstruction diverges from the measured value 33% of the time that it’s not reliable. If it has diverged 33% of the time over the last 120 years what is to say it hasn’t done the same in the past before records were kept?

So what if the divergence problem was known in their little clique. Thats like a company keeping something out of their Form 10-k and then when the investors get pissed saying 'well that was addressed in an inter office memo'.

Jeremiah| 6.1.10 @ 3:18PM

Mr. Ed's horsing around shows he has absolutely no horse sense at all.

Tim Jones | 6.2.10 @ 11:39AM

Ed Darrell is doing a commendable job of holding forth against the phoney science crowd.
He's right on all counts.

Remarks prefaced with aspersions and character assassination clearly denotes the intellectual calibre of his opposition as pathetic and ill informed.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.2.10 @ 4:24PM

Blow it out your ass, Timmy; you Fascist liars have plenty more hot gas where that came from.

You lied and cheated and you got caught--deal with it!

BTW--only 40% of registered voters believe in Globaloney Warming now; read it and weep, libtard.

See you in November.

Tim Jones | 6.2.10 @ 5:26PM

Blow it out your own, Revolting Nobody. By November your life will be so hot and so polluted with stinking oil you'll vote against yourself.
Oh, you were going to do that anyway, weren't you?

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.3.10 @ 5:54PM

I would never vote for a stinkin' Commie like you. You don't care about the environment, you only crave power and control like all Progressive-Marxist skunks.
Corrupt and incompetent, you Leftist liberals are incapable of governing--that's why you have to lie.

You eco-terrorists probably sabotaged the oil well in the first place; the ends justify the means for slimeballs like you.

See you in November, ahole. You fake, morally bankrupt do-gooders are being shown for the frauds you are.

Oilbama's presidency died with the Gulf Coast eco-disaster you liberals caused. Read it and weep, loser.

Liberals' mantra--SPILL BABY SPILL!!

Tim Jones| 6.3.10 @ 10:08PM

I see a brainwashed coward hiding behind Internet anonymity to throw around careless allegations of terrorism and murder.

What are you? One of Limbog's dogs?

You're talking to an ex oil man Mr. Single Digit.

The fact is, the presidency of the United States was "big oil" under GWB. He infused government with a climate of deregulation and lax enforcement that led the MMS to permit all sorts of risky oil exploration. A foreign national oil company took even greater risks during well completion and evacuated the annulus of its well of heavy drilling mud and replaced it with
sea water right at the time the well was kicking. That is, deep formation pressure was driving a mixture of highly compressed natural gas and crude oil up the casing. A poorly maintained BOP malfunctioned and the well blew out.

The BOP could have been sabotaged. But more likely it was a bad call by the BP company man. Even if the BOP had been deliberately compromised there's no way a saboteur would have known it would have to be used.

Your call that liberals or eco-terrorists caused this disaster is perversely wrong. It quite proves you're a pawn in a big shot's game with no inability to perceive the truth of anything. If your ilk do win a majority in the Congress I fear for the nation.

The crude oil volcano killing the Gulf of Mexico originated with big oil in high office gratifying a carbon culture that makes a few people very rich and many of the rest of us us stupidly complacent.

The same people that instituted deregulation and lax
enforcement are the ones heavily financing Inhofe and
CEI in their efforts to thwart climate change legislation.
The power play is one of huge corporations trying to rule the world. So the fascist is you, not me.

Do you see the lesson of here? You back this sort of thing at your peril. You're being used as a big mouth with a small mind. Take your disgusting allegations elsewhere.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.4.10 @ 6:24AM

No, the Fascist is you, braindead moron--and every other lying, Progressive/Marxist dog trying to cram Globaloney Warming BS down our throats.

If your theory were correct you fearmongers wouldn't have to lie and deceive to persuade the public. You don't care about the environment, you only care about power and control like all good little Collectivist monsters.

We don't trust you Leftists and we put NOTHING past you--hell yes! you'd blow an oil rig to get what you want. The ends always justify the means for pieces of human excrement like you.

Oilbama's taken plenty of money from Big Oil; a convenient omission on your part.

Oilbama owns this eco-disaster.
Oilbama lied, the Gulf Coast died.

Tim Jones| 6.4.10 @ 8:45AM

Swim in your swill, hopelessly confused. You bear false witness.

Tim Jones| 6.4.10 @ 9:24AM

There's little light coming forth in this discussion, only heat. I'm finding American Spectator to be more like an American sphincter. Suffice it to say you teabaggers are fulminating cowards using this comment venue to regurgitate the worst of the national thought process.
Anthropogenic climate change is real. The longer you delay accepting reality the worse it will be for you and your children. Twist and squirm as you may with your lies and hatred. Screaming your venomous slogans will never convince a thoughtful person of the validity of your position.

Tim Jones| 6.4.10 @ 3:10PM

Let me add. You write that I would blow up an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico? I own a nature preserve with a recognized wildlife management plan. I wrote and defended a successful petition to the USFWS for the listing of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler. You write that I would stoop to causing the oil flood killing everything along the southern coast? GODDAMN YOU SIR!

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!| 6.4.10 @ 4:14PM

AGW is NOT REAL and all your whining, screaming and crying won't change that fact!

If it were true you wouldn't have to lie and cheat to persuade the public. It's just that simple.
You're a cheap shill, a whore for the Progressive/Marxist cause, nothing more.
You're just a useful idiot.

Obama's tanking in the polls because of his dereliction of duty regarding the oil rig blast; it's incredibly ironic that our worst man-made ecological disaster occurred on this Liberal dumbasse's watch.

God help the people and wildlife of the Gulf Coast.

Tim Jones | 6.4.10 @ 5:01PM

Well now rotten potatoes, pathetic minion of your corporate masters, how you would know who I am?

AGW is real all right. The evidence is all over the place. I have presented the science for anyone to see on my website, a public service.

And it isn't cheap, it's free. I don't have to hide behind a meaningless name like you to spout off your ugly names and cowardly lies.

I've been to the Antarctic Peninsula and seen melting icebergs in the Weddell Sea. I'm seeing what the predicted droughts are doing to the trees on my land in Texas. I haven't lied or cheated the public of anything and you know it. Your names mean nothing. But lying and cheating is your stock in trade, isn't it?

If you want to see the melting icebergs go here, to my other website.
http://earthlightimagery.com/gallery.php?gid=52

We can agree on one thing, "God help the people and wildlife of the Gulf Coast." But it would be helpful if you pushed an agenda where this sort of thing didn't happen at all. In fact the remnants of the climate of deregulation and lax enforcement are your legacy if you're with CEI. The blood's on your hands. And you want more of it?

Go ahead and squeal with denial. But in your heart you know yourself for what you are and what you have done.

Try to be a responsible adult for a change and make things better if your soul means anything to you at all. You're an intelligent person. You could do better.

Tim Jones| 6.5.10 @ 10:02PM

CEI was founded to promote a free market legal program which seeks to overturn government regulations.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind....._Institute

In short it whole reason for existence is to elevate overwhelming corporate greed as a philosophy of life. It would have corporations run government - the very definition of fascism.

CEI lobbies for tobacco corporations. It comes out against fuel efficiency standards. It fulminates against clean air and clean water. It says dioxin is good for you, promising "there are things more valuable than health."

It actively lobbies against government regulation of the oil industry. It's a leading force in an industry-funded campaign to eliminate funding for environmental education throughout the United States.

It's major funders have been Exxon Mobil, Texaco, the American Petroleum Institute and the tobacco industry. "Only a tobacco-funded think tank would ever go so far as to describe smoking as a civic duty."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....civic_duty

It's purely shrill about Obama receiving campaign contributions from BP as if somehow that made Obama responsible
for BP's Gulf blowout catastrophe. But the lack of regulations and poor enforcement started during the Bush administration and CEI was a big part of lobbying and the climate of deregulation that led to operating procedures that resulted in the worst drilling blowout in American history.

The CEI apologist here dishonestly tries to point the finger at me, deepening the abyss of guilt he shares for what happens in the Gulf of Mexico. He howls against regulations to thwart anthropogenic global warming.

See the pattern here?

CEI is nothing but a whore for corporate greed. It's history of pushing deregulation is seeing its chickens coming home to roost again. On every count CEI has been wrong - lethally wrong for vast numbers of Americans.

CEI is as foul as its foul mouthed advocates in this forum. These attorneys are truly evil, driven by greed and a lack of respect for all forms of life and the health of the planet they dance with the Devil. Tricksters, they turn the truth on its head to practice deception to mislead you. They act like imps from Hell, responsible for disemboweling the Earth to foul the nation with a stinking oily slime. And then they point at me to shift blame?

Pathetic. Capitalism at its worst.

Listen to these fiends at your peril. The lawsuit against NASA and RealClimate and Gavin Schmidt is to confuse you enough to vote against your own self interest.

But support their cause. Open your eyes. See what you get.

Tom| 6.7.10 @ 5:34PM

So what Tim?

I don’t believe that the source of an FOI request can be used as grounds to dismiss it. Actually I believe that the law both in the US and UK expressly forbid it.

The documents belong to the public and NASA has to supply them. To keep refusing to do so is now bordering on illegality. If you want privacy don’t take taxpayer funds.

Tim Jones| 6.8.10 @ 1:14AM

I tried to broach the subject at RC and it was called off topic, with an explanation that they didn't discuss ongoing lawsuits and they wouldn't be having a trial by blog , asking for patience.

Do you think taxpayer funds should be used to gratify nuisance FOIA requests? Is answering FOIA what you want taxpayer funded scientists to do all day long instead of conducting research?

Tom| 6.8.10 @ 4:45AM

The FOIA requests are not intended to be a nuisance. They are intended to find if Gavin is engaging in advocacy on the public dime. This is a valid concern and against the rules of his employ and ethics of government service.

There is little doubt that Gavin has run real climate from Goddard. The time stamps more than meet the burden of proof for civil claims. It is not frivolous and NASA must produce. Thats why ever governemnt agency has to have someone in charge of FIOAs, so it doesn't take Gavins time. If NASA has been lax in proper documentation and their FOIA officer lacks what is needed to complete the request than that is their fault.

Tim Jones| 6.8.10 @ 10:49AM

The CEI lawsuit is intended to thwart progress on climate change legislation any way possible.

Working as a scientist for the government doesn't mean you lose you rights as a human being to protect the lives of your children or your freedom of speech.

Nor does Gavin own body and soul to the US government. A normal eight hour working day
leaves 16 hours to do what you want. Moderating a blog, I do so myself, and replying with four or five comments a day is no drain on my other working commitments.

I doubt if there is a "FOIA Officer."

Tim Jones| 6.8.10 @ 10:49AM

The CEI lawsuit is intended to thwart progress on climate change legislation any way possible.

Working as a scientist for the government doesn't mean you lose you rights as a human being to protect the lives of your children or your freedom of speech.

Nor does Gavin own body and soul to the US government. A normal eight hour working day
leaves 16 hours to do what you want. Moderating a blog, I do so myself, and replying with four or five comments a day is no drain on my other working commitments.

I doubt if there is a "FOIA Officer."

More Blog Posts by Chris Horner

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/27/cei-suing-nasa-over-climate-st

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|146 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|79 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|30 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.