It appears that the global warming science and data controversy is poised to take on a more local flavor:
lol. I love how all these articles make statements like "appear to show researchers shaving their data to conform to their expectations" without any backing evidence or context. Lamesauce.
Some clown from a conservative "think" tank trying to make news. There was a thread about the "1934" adjustment: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=134019&highlight=nasa+1934 The delay is processing a FOIA is probably because the guy asked for emails from everyone for several years. That means somebody has to go back and read every email and make a determination under FOIA if it is releasable. Not an easy or quick task given the volume of emails that say stuff like"Come to Frank's retirement party."
No, it wasn't. Raw data is still available and the raw data set can be reconstructed. If the 1980's were now, they would have kept it because you can put a terabyte of info on something the size of a paperback. Back then, it was probably hundreds or thousands of computer tapes. Many data repositories made similar decisions.
With all of the added publicity and focus on this issue, it appears likely that NASA will actually have to release the information. It will be interesting to see what that information consists of without any intermediate adjustments or interpretations.
Actually I hope this guy's lawsuit is successful and I think releasing more information is better than less. What we are seeing with the so called Climategate is a cherry picking of emails to try to paint the darkest picture possible. From following this issue for years a fuller review of all the data out there continues to support the theory that man made actions are contributing global warming.
This is of course true, rocketsjudoka, but where is there any evidence that the media, the general public, or the national discourse can actually handle large data sets, or the idea of probability versus certainty? There we have an ongoing conundrum. If you have one set of people playing political football, trying to "win" at all costs (I suppose to maintain their careers in buying and selling oil futures?), and another set trying to actually explain how scientists measure these quantities and attempt to create accurate models of complex processes, what results? A mess. The only resolution? Either the scientific side starts playing football (e.g. over simplifying or reducing the full complexity of the data in order to not be shouted down or spun to death by disingenuous denialists), or you hope (against all behavioral evidence and logic), that the denialists will start playing an honest game and focusing on the truth and the greater good. Check out the CNN web piece today on Alaskan villages falling into the ocean. Ugly stuff. Alrighty, that's one post more than I should venture in these threads. rhad is probably slapping upside the head already.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant for this type of controversy. Of course, if some people are opposed to that, their reasons for taking that position are easily understandable to most people.
http://business.financialpost.com/2...listic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012. 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance. H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS. “These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston... “These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there..." _____ Any climatologists in that group of heroes?
we should all strive to lower our pollution of the very world we live in, even if climate data was skewed. people are dumb
Can you actually refute what was posted, or can you only cowardly hurl insults at the poster? If you can only hurl insults, then you should step out of the way and let the adults discuss.
We've been led to war under false pretenses. I don't see why it would be hard to disbelieve that information is being distored to serve some political end-purpose. Should we strive to reduce pollution? Absolutely. Is man solely responsible for the ever changing climate conditions of the planet? Well, I believe not. When there is fossil evidence of tropical plants in Alaska and Antartica I think man's understanding and history of earth's climate is imcomplete. That should not stop us though of being good stewards of the enviornment.
