By Investors Business Daily Editorial Board
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.
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. Was Hansen, like his CRU counterpart Michael Mann, trying to “hide the decline” in temperatures?
North America wasn’t as warm as expected because of cooler water in the North Pacific â€” a condition called La Nina â€” but the rest of the world continued to warm, researchers said Friday. The overall warming trend is expected to continue worldwide.
La Nina caused cold air from the Arctic to move south into North America, temporarily overwhelming the warming influence from climate change in the region, said Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado, lead author of the report being published next week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
While temperature readings in North America dropped back to about the level of 1996 last year, it would have been even colder without the underlying effects of human-induced climate warming, said co-author Martin Hoerling of the Earth System Research Laboratory of the government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“Our work shows that there can be cold periods, but that does not mean the end of global warming,” Perlwitz said.
Last year “was not an extremely cold year; it was not an extreme event,” Hoerling said, but it did “raise a considerable stir.”
The scientists launched their study of conditions last year and compared them with complex computer climate models, leading to the conclusion that it was a case of natural variability rather than any change in global warming.
The work was funded by the NOAA Climate Program Office, and other co-authors were from NOAA’s National Weather Service and National Climatic Data Service.
Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ isn’t in the dictionary?
How much is Perlwitz grants?? I’ll bet it is a sizable amount.
What’s your point Dan? Oops, now this-
In some areas – parts of Africa, central Asia – this will probably be the warmest year, but overall 2009 “is likely to be about the fifth-warmest year on record,” said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.
The decade 2000-2009 “is very likely to be the warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s, than the 1980s and so on,” Jarraud said.
The sad thing is- you guys think “they” can keep this hoax up forever, which is what they would have to do if indeed it was/is a hoax. There’s no way any meaningful/serious concessions are going to be made in Copenhagen, and even if there are the world’s governments wouldn’t be able to get their acts together to fully comply, even if they wanted to. You guys are Don Quixoti’s (spelled wrong I know). You are fighting against something that isn’t even there. You are obsessed with the wrong enemies. If you want to know the truth, do yourself a favor and read the book: “When Corporations Rule the World.” THEN and only then will you begin to see reality.
Well, you’d have to be pretty darn gullible to swallow that load you posted. Did you open up a dictionary? And, no I don’t think they can keep up the hoax forever. I KNOW that they can’t. It’s already falling apart. Or I suppose I should say it’s already fallen apart, but the people who have so much invested in the scam are still in denial and are frantically trying to put it back together while marching boldly ahead as if the whole hoax wasn’t laying in pieces all around them. They are racing toward the cap and trade finish line even as the bridge is collapsing under them. Only question is can they manage to leap across the chasm and get their cap and trade scheme in place even as the AGW support structure is falling into the abyss?
Uh… ok. So, Dan, you believe the decades, more or less, of research surrounding climte change/warming has been a huge hoax all this time, JUST FOR the CAP AND TRADE (CaT) scam?? Really?! Now who’s gullible?? That was sure a patient (VERY PATIENT) set of hoaxers, eh? Wow, I almost want to let them win just out of their dedication, tireless persistance and hard work… ! Whatever. I don’t support CaT, BUT I also don’t believe that is the basis behind this issue (climate change).
Now, you should clarify what you said because you would really have to be gullible to think that. I’ll help you out here: climate change/warming came first. The Cap and Trade idea to help solve it came second…(even though it had been used for other similar problems before, in fact it was and idea created by a Nixon aide during his administration.)
Thus, what I want to know its what you think is behind the entire thing, not just CaT.
Crisis is usually the catalyst for change. The leftists know that. The objective of the climate scam isn’t merely cap and trade. That’s just one financial component of the scam – a biggie, but not the end game. The objective of the scammers is and has always been to bring about global communism. You can see from the leaked clilmategate emails that the scam does indeed go back decades.
Rob, you just don’t get it do you.
How’s that? I think I outlined the issue rather succinctly above, and have yet to see Dan’s response. And maybe Paul you can fill me in on the details that I “just don’t get”, if you would be so kind.
When the lemmings quit falling off the cliff following Ole Albert/Soros and their minions and the bell tolls, you will find the answer. Remember as I have stated numerous times, “truth shall prevail.” Never forget it. I agree 100% with Dan.
Gee, Dan just got shy. And Paul is as superfically repetitive as usual.
Truth never changes. It it was it is. If that is repetition, so be it! I doubt that Dan got shy. He probably does not know how to respond to your dribble, nor do I.
Actually, I do know how to respond and I did – I’ve been very busy latey. GlobalClimateScam isn’t my only project.
Sorry, I didn’t realize I was driveling. Thought is was a legitmate question which would allow you guys to expand upon your grievances, so I could understand it better. Oh well.
I see that now, Dan, thanks. No need to be defensive… well, don’t blame you, I am a pain in the arse. I just wanted to hear (see) you say it- finally. The great dark fantasy of all right-wingers. World Communism…. da da da daaahhh!!! As I’ve said befoe I disagree with that. It is actually world-wide fascism that we are getting and will get. But I guess I am going to try and not focus on the semantics, because you and I apparently agree that some powerful and evil, force is in the process of changing the world to suit their needs, not ours. So, will you guys also be willing to forgo the usual right/left stuff and maybe, just maybe, tolerate your lefty brothers and sisters enough to see that we average lefty schmucks are just as much victims here as the average righty schmcuk, and that if we can work together for a country that allows US to have a say, and not those power hungry freaks who are barely human… Whaddya say? I know I can speak for many tolerant leftys when I say we will work with you (not to mention it’s the only real chance we have…).
Well, you make a point there. Ultimately it’s going to have to break down as Freedom-loving Americans vs. tyrants. Freedom vs. Tyranny has long been the battle. Whether the tyranny comes from people aligned with right or left philosophies doesn’t matter – it all works out the same for us peasants – bad. Now tell me how to go about causing the left and right to work together when simply saying the words “conservative” or “Republican” fills most liberals with blood-lust and saying “Democrat” or “liberal” makes conservatives scoff with disdain?
This is the major problem. The “left” and “Right” getting together. I have a few suggestions, however, they would never come to pass. I’m a believer in sitting down and looking the opposing party in the eye and going over issues that we disagree upon and in a cordial manner and coming to an agreement that we both agree will work for the benefit of both. I have not seen that with the House or Senate. It is either left or right. “The party line.” All of my friends our of the same opinion as I and we are all sick of the bickering. It makes us wonder if our elected officials ever think, or bottom line LISTEN, after they take office.
I have no answer.
Very quaint Paul. Sorry, but that is naive in reality and in fantasy. What we need is election reform. It is not hard to see that really. I think even Dan could agree with that. And it could be done for more egalitarian and actual democracy. But you see the powers that be- on both sides don’t want that? Why? Well the main reason is they are both woned and operated by the real powers- who are they? Well, the elite wealthy, of course, who else would/could it be? Some penniless liberal-marxists like me? Ha ha- good one.
People- “communism” is dead- it died with the USSR. Your capitalism won, and that is now what is controlling you, and the world. Wake up.
All I sense is hate for reality.