ATI’s Chesser: Suing NASA and UVA
By Paul Chesser
Survey results published this month by Rasmussen Reports show the public is skeptical of scientists who practice in the realm of climate change, which might cause opponents of academic transparency to think twice.
The staggering findings should be a serious blow to morale within the Global Warming Governmental Science Complex. Rasmussen discovered in a national telephone poll that 69 percent of respondents say “it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40 percent who say this is very likely.” Only 22 percent who responded believe it’s not likely that some scientists have falsified global warming data to fit their theories.
Undoubtedly the Climategate scandal — which broke in November of 2009 and disclosed thousands of email messages among researchers who built a wall of protection around an invented “consensus” view of global warming alarmism — has had an effect. The percentage of respondents to the Rasmussen poll who say it is likely scientists have falsified research has increased 10 points since December 2009.
So who is holding all these scientists accountable, many of whom conduct their research thanks to financing from taxpayers?
Certainly the formerly mainstream media doesn’t do it, because it isfirmly encamped in the global warming belief system and has amplified the scientific “consensus” myth as fact since the hysteria commenced over 20 years ago. You need only look at the public positions and website of the Society of Environmental Journalists, where reporters recharge their affirmation for alarmism and marginalize scientists who are skeptical of impending catastrophe (“Big Oil owns them!”).
Meanwhile the enviro-media’s image and credibility tanks with the climate scientists. A Gallup poll late last year showed 57 percent of Americans distrust the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly — a record high for the survey organization.
That doesn’t keep these journalists from applying their double standard to the climate science debate. Last year USA Today reporter Dan Vergano sought, and received, records and emails (attack!) from George Mason University surrounding a report by professors who called into question statistical methods and the “pal review” practices of the few scientists in the closed “consensus” circle. Allegations of plagiarism were made against chief author Edward Wegman because a graduate student who worked on the paper copied and pasted text from an alarmist professor’s work, which was not vital to the paper’s main points.
But no comparable curiosity from the media exists towards those in the climate alarmism clique, despite the public’s mistrust. While Climategate briefly aroused interest at a couple of outlets, the enviro-journalist guild quickly retreated to the safety of their commune at SEJ.
That’s why my organization, American Tradition Institute, initiated two public records requests (which have turned into Freedom of Information Act lawsuits) for the work of key figureheads in the government-funded global warming science realm. The first seeks the correspondence and supporting data from the University of Virginia from the work of Dr. Michael Mann, who while at the university (he’s now at Penn State) developed the famous “Hockey Stick” temperature chart that cut off tree ring data after 1960. We also want to know how he eliminated the Medieval Warm Period that has been recognized widely as part of the historical record.
We also have asked NASA to provide the outside employment records of global warming activist Dr. James Hansen, who has earned into the millions of dollars in income additional to his taxpayer funded job as head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He has used that platform to get extra work as a highly compensated speaker, policy advocate, book writer, and legal adviser, among other opportunities. Both the University and NASA are resisting our inquiries, so we’ve had to sue them both.
A July 2009 paper published by Science and Public Policy Institute revealed the U.S. government has spent more than $79 billion since 1989 on policies and research related to climate change, with few that are curious about natural causes. Climategate, “pal” review of research, Hockey Sticks, temperature stations with a heat bias, IPCC researchdrawn from World Wildlife Fund pamphlets, and a host of other oddities upon which the alarmism edifice is built have contributed to doubt among 69 percent of the public.
Taxpayers deserve transparency in the science they pay billions of dollars for, and they shouldn’t have to rely on hackers, whistleblowersor judges to provide it for them. Unfortunately that’s what has happened, so the credibility of climate scientists — and the media who promote them — sank.
Dear ATI,
there is always uncertainty in scientific research, which includes the work of Dr. Mann. As pointed out by the Commencement Speaker at Berkeley’s College of Engineering graduation, the Challenger disaster was caused because administrators chose to ignore warnings from the engineers because they could not prove that the o-rings would definitely fail.
Are you willing to make the same mistake on a global scale?
Sincerely,
Dorian Liepmann
Professor of Bioengineering and Mechanical Engineering
UC Berkeley
Quote: “Are you willing to make the same mistake on a global scale?”
Dorian; that is very twisted logic you use to force a vague situation resemblance to Feynman’s brilliant historical insight into the cause of a disaster.
Feynman proved his insight, in public with a very simple demonstration because the rest of the committee did not agree. What if NASA refused to share critical data and prevented the committee from interviewing “the team”?
Therein is the analogy; ATI is the investigating team looking for background information and data that went into building the Hockey Stick. UVA and Mann have been refusing to provide information that should have been shared freely so that other scientists could better understand and replicate the analysis.
Add to their information denials, there is indication that climate research and publishing shenanigans (a decidedly polite phrasing of their actions). Which brings up a huge concern about how this group spent the public’s money. As a resident of Virginia I am embarrassed that UVA went to such ridiculous lengths and expenses to try and stymie public inspection of these records.
I am curious why you post a “Jump NOW! or Earth will be doomed” type of post? Given the extremely short weather historical record and an even shorter climate study combined with the fact that we (that is, everyone) still do not understand all components that go into our climate. Outside of the crazed AGW alarmists wandering around with their “The end is near” sandwich signs and shouting everyone else down, there is very little evidence that we need to worry. And absolutely no reasons that ATI should be concerned that their FOIA request will cause any sort of global mistake or disaster.
As for as scientific research uncertainty, I am lost as to why you think that point belongs in discussion.
Fact:
The sea has been rising since the last ice age. In fact it is rising slower this past century than earlier in this interglacial warm-up.
Mankind thrives when it is warm. Food grows abundantly, people don’t freeze.
Mankind suffers when it gets colder.
Records supposedly being set currently are frequently breaking records a century or more old.
Just this past year; a new ocean current has been identified, Cosmic rays have been proven as cloud seeds. Where is the “settled” science or any genuine indication that we are witnessing “unprecendented” climate changes that cause any sane person to panic?
Maybe y’all should learn to cope? Mankind has been through tremendous climate and I personally do not see any reason that mankind cannot cope with future changes.
Both the article and the discussion re:the first post are refreshingly intelligent and “to the point”. I am actively involved in attempts at educating the public on the sWINDle that is “clean, green, cheap, wind energy” being rammed down our throats by Governor Tim Pawlenty’s 2025 Mandate for renewable energy. I am constantly amazed by the number of people who support wind as a source of energy because it will somehow “reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.” Electrical generation and oil have nothing to do with one another but the public has bought into the lie hook, line and sinker. Facts appear to mean less than “feelings” nowadays, and what we want to be true is used as a substitute for what we know or can prove to be true.
Having said that, I am aware that UN Agenda 21 is the driving force behind all of this nonsense, with well-meaning morons forwarding the touch-feely idea that we can somehow creata a world without poverty and war – a Marxist utopia. Of course the violence necessary to achieve the type of oppressive governance necessary to create and maintain such a delusion is never expressed so people buy into this because like Miss America, we all want “world peace.”
We’re tired here in SE Minnesota; the farmers, small property owners, fiscal conservatives and salt-of-the-earth citizens who operate with a hefty dose of reality and common sense. Our tax dollars are being used against us so we are quickly becoming depleted of funds. The choices given to us by leaders feel like “rape, torture or murder?”. Our unwillingness to accept any of the aforementioned is causes us to be painted as unreasonable and unwilling to compromise, as if any of the choices offered are desireable! It’s unclear at this time, whether our policy is being determined by diabolical geniuses or complete fools. Perhaps it’s some of each: corruption and incompetence are not mutually exclusive traits.
The fact is that even IF global warming was real, wind energy would do absolutely nothing to stop it or reduce our carbon footprint. The loss of birds and bats struck and killed by this spinning junk will eventually take it’s toll on ecosystems across the planet, and man in his infinite stupidity will attempt to remedy this with pesticides and insecticides. Insects will develop a tolerance so we will need heavier applications of chemicals, which will build up to toxic levels in the soil and watershed; thus poisoning more plants, animals….. This will eventually kill our land. Those of us who make our living from the earth see the changes in the climate and are not concerned with nature’s processes. We are; however, extremely concerned with man’s responses, which are borne of greed and supported by ignorance and/or outright stupidity.
Dear Mr Chesser,
in the public interest you have sued for and received a ream of documents pertaining to Michael Mann from the University of Virginia. You have consistently implied wrong-doing on the part of the university for obstructing the release of this information.
Science Insider reports:
‘Asked what ATI plans to do with the documents, Chesser said that depends on what’s in them. The institute may decide to post them on its Web site, he said. “We’ll have to see what we’ve got first.”‘
“Depends on what’s in them?”
In the interests of transparency, and in line with the arguments you have made throughout your endeavours, you should post these missives and data online, in their entirety, with no redactions, and you should do this now. Why should ATI now become the keeper of such information?
Post it all now, so that the taxpayers of America can assess for themselves with no obstruction or guidance from ATI. To delay is to assume the mantle of those you have derided. This equivocation is the height of hypocrisy.
Berynn Schwerdt.
CO2 is a trace gas in air, insignificant by definition and a poor absorber of IR, heat energy, from sunlight compared to water vapor by a factor of seven. Water vapor has 80 times as many molecules and generates 560 times as much heat for air or 99.8% of it. CO2 only does 0.2% of “global warming.” For this we should ruin our economy?
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD. It is just that simple.
The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com gives sharp analysis, science and humor every day. Now on Kindle.
Ted,
I’m sorry for my slow reply. My comment about the space shuttle did not refer to Feyman’s analysis, but that before the Challenger took off NASA engineers warned the NASA administration that the shuttle flight could be unsafe because it was too cold.
I agree that the hockey stick data is problematic and I am pretty horrified about the behavior of some scientists as evidenced by the published emails. Unfortunately over-sell is becoming pandemic, partially because it helps to get funding and partially because of the publicity for the program. The data that I find more convincing are from glacial ice cores that show the temperature record and atmospheric CO2 conditions in (almost) one position over an extremely long time period.
I initially found the rapid changes in glaciers, etc. confusing because the estimated temperature increases are around a couple of degrees. When I discussed this with a colleague, he pointed out that local weather is strongly influenced by the wind patterns (e.g. jet streams) formed by large atmospheric vortices. The positions of these are relatively unstable so changes in temperature will cause them to move – clearly, if a jet stream moves significantly (e.g. south of a mountain range instead of north), this could change the conditions significantly.
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. This is not a typical forum for me.
Just a comment about the previous comment from Adrian. Many years ago I did some research with coal and it is the nastiest material I have ever worked with. The problem with coal being our primary energy source is not just the CO2, there are all the pollution issues associated with it, as well as the 25,000 to 50,000 coal-related deaths and injuries per year in the US. It would be great to have a coherent nuclear power policy.
Dorian Liepmann
Ted,
sorry, I missed the other part of your question. You are right that my original comment was not specific to the legal issues of the ATI. I stumbled on the site and this was the most recent article on the website.
I was also reacting to the attitude that researchers in atmospheric science are somehow trying to scam the country. When politicians seem to be convinced that global warming is fraudulent, that is weird because that implies that someone is trying to defraud the public. It is a very difficult and complex issue.
Dorian
Say, you got a nice article. Cool.