NOAA/NASA's Hansen manages data on temperatures.
(Oh, REALLY!, you say!)
Yup. The graphics are on this PowerLine post.
One may argue that NASA/NOAA simply revised data to reflect........well.......SOMETHING or other.
Maybe you're right....
You probably assume that NOAA and NASA have made their raw data available to independent researchers, along with explanations of the adjustments they have made. But no--those agencies have resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for the original, raw data.
...but you'll never know.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I can't find any original source material backing the claim that NASA and NOAA are thwarting FOIA requests. Can you provide backing to this claim? Fox News and Pajamas media don't count.
Well, neither do NOAA/NASA, or East Anglia, Jim.
I'm a credulous sorta guy, except for hockey sticks.
The East Anglia "conspiracy" has been thoroughly debunked, Dad.
So I'll take that as a "no?"
Debunked in as much as you're comfortable with a climatologist using the term, "hide the decline" in any of his work.
But then his work is being frequently debunked, like hockey stick charts.
There you go Jim.
A simple google on NASA and FOIA and LAw Suit would have done it for you. Several major papers are carrying the story.
Sorry I didn't see anything at the link regarding NASA and non-compliance with FOIA. Could you quote exactly what you're referring to?
Once again, 3 or 4 seconds and google would have given you hundreds of links but to make it easy.
If you need me to explain the big words let me know.
We could start here:
“In a series of e-mails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, additional doubt has surfaced over NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)’s temperature data. Senior NASA scientist Dr. Reto Ruedy, in a response to USA Today reporter Doyle Rice in 2007, stated that it is clear that NASA GISS temperature data was flawed when he advised the reporter to ‘continue using NCDC’s (NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center) for the U.S. means and Phil Jone’s [HADCRU3] data for the global means. . .We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. . .Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.’
“We have serious concerns with what this e-mail exchange demonstrates, which is the use of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) data in what was thought to be an independent U.S. data set. Unfortunately, it appears that American data is partially derived from the corrupted data set that has been criticized as too political and unscientific as a result of the Climategate scandal.
“Even CRU’s Phil Jones stated in a candid admission in a BBC interview that ‘his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated.’ This echoed the emails of their programmer Ian ‘Harry’ Harris who commented on ‘[The] hopeless state of their (CRU) database. No uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found”
Which does not demonstrate that there is an FOIA refusal, yet.
But it DOES demonstrate that Phil Jones, is a discredited hack, so far as he admits same.
And, yes, the WaTimes story seems to be definitive.
I'd be happy to address the Times story as soon as we resolve where in the barrasso.senate.gov document says anything about NASA block FOIA requests. David?
Hey, Spice --
What's your Paypal ID?
I want to donate $20 so you can buy a fucking clue.
Ms. Strupp, send the $20 to Palin instead. She can use it to buy a vocabulary so she can use the the real word like you rather than abbreviating it.
Post a Comment