www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data//print/
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a
U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of
climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges
it skewed its data.
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA
has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of
Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and
would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far
back as the 1930s.
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys
are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions
about this."
The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found
that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48
states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for
first, with 1934 slightly cooler.
Mr. Horner, a noted global warming skeptic and author of The Politically
Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, wants a look at the data
and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency
until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the
information's release.
His fight mirrors one in Europe that has sprung up over the the University of
East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK after thousands of e-mails from
the center were obtained and appear to show researchers shaving their data to
make it conform to their expectation, and show efforts to try to drive global
warming skeptics out of the conversation.
The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.
The center has also had to acknowledge in response to a freedom of information
request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used
to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science
behind global warming.
Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data-shaving has happened at NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS), another leading global warming research
center.
Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which
runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner's request, though
he couldn't say why they have taken so long.
"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive
relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a
process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's
responsive."
He said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn't say whether
NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data. The White House has
dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.
"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is
happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most
people, in dispute anymore," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this
week.
But Republicans on Capitol Hill say the revelations deserve a congressional
investigation. Republican leaders also sent a letter to Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson Wednesday telling her she should withdraw a
series of EPA rules until the global warming science can be better
substantiated. For now, climate scientists are rallying around the British
researchers.
Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University who is under fire for his
involvement in the British e-mail exchanges, said the e-mails' release was timed
to skunk up next week's U.N. global warming summit in Copenhagen. Mr. Obama is
planning to attend.
"They've taken scientists' words and phrases and quoted them out of context,
completely misrepresenting what they were saying," Mr. Mann told AccuWeather.com
in an interview, calling it a "manufactured controversy."
NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by
Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931.
After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest,
followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been
rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.
The institute blamed a "minor data processing error" for the changes but says it
doesn't make much difference since the top three years remain in a "statistical
tie" either way.
Mr. Horner said he's seeking the data itself, but he also wants to see the chain
of e-mails from scientists discussing the changes.
The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to requests within
20 days. Mr. Horner says he's never received an official acknowledgement of his
three separate FOIA requests, but has received e-mails showing the agency is
aware of them.
He said he has provided NASA with a notice of intent to sue under FOIA, but said
he also hopes members of Congress get involved and demand the information be
released.
NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that
suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA
argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.
On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests
temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.