Why withhold it? Seriously... why?

I think the problem is one that's common in a lot of circles - you have a reputation of accuracy, you want to keep that rep whole, no matter the cost. You also want 'fame' and 'recognition' - and that's supplied by the people you give information to. If it's what they want, they're happy and your prestige increases. And so does your budget.

If it isn't - then your prestige slips. Once that prestige drops to a certain point, your funding is in danger.

NASA's been under fire for close to the last twenty years or more - each year their budget is scrutinized closely by Congress, and their funding is ALWAYS shaky. It's hard to run a space program when everything else is seen as more important. It's hard to make multi-year plans when everyone's got their fingers on your money, quite willing to grab whatever they can of it for their own pet causes.

(As far as funding goes... the auto bailout has run considerably more than $100 billion - NASA's budget for 2009 was around $18 billion. What sort of space program would we have for $100 billion a year? And how many jobs would an expansion like that create?)

There's been a lot of folks in Washington who've been pushing the Warming cart, who are indebted to the left and the environmentally overeager thereof - and they hold the purse strings. NASA holds the data. NASA's got a good suspicion that if their output doesn't 'measure up' to what the politicians want - then the money's going to go away. So there are 'adjustments' made, possibly to come into congruence with the CRU databases.

What may have been at one time a relatively accurate picture of worldwide temperatures has since been 'adjusted' all to hell - and that's made so clear by the variations in the outputs over time. 1934's the hottest year... until temperatures were adjusted and suddenly 1998 was the hottest... until they were adjusted again and it was 1934 again... until it was adjusted again and 1998 and 2006 tied, with 1938 a close contender.

How are you supposed to trust numbers that vary like that? It's like the old joke about the kid who asked a politician what 2+2 was. The politician asked for a quarter - the kid handed it over - and the politician bent down and quietly said: "What would you like it to be?"

NASA's between a rock and a hard place. They may have cooked the books - but they're seen as the authoritative standard. How can they release data that would show them to have fudged the numbers without taking a hit for it? And how will they avoid the usual suspects who'll howl for NASA defunding once they do so?

Correction - "with 1938 a close contender." should be "with 1934 a close contender."

NASA = James Hansen = TH Kerry funded fraud

Rick I am assuming you are being sarcastic. It is easily solved if they are being honest and have valid calculation. If not that is a big problem for them.

It also sound like they are breaking the law by not releasing it and not replying in a valid amount of time.

"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."

Recalculate? So these supposed smart people had to jumble the numbers a few times to acknowledge their screw ups.

I think We found a new career for the jug eared dunce once He's been defrocked.

What about Obama claiming that the top UN scientist falsifying data is no big deal because they have other data as well? What happen to the seriousness of the charge? Top scientist who data you use is no big deal? Please. Also shouldn't one be concern that others perhaps NASA did the same thing? I suppose that as long as it supports your agenda it doesn't matter if it is true or not.

Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Hahahahahahahaha..

JAMES HANSEN is the wacko who has been blabbering this GLOBAL WARMING poppycock and whines that GEORGE W. BUSH tried to silence him and the other global warming carked urns and i have CHIRS HONERS book THE POLITICLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND ENVIROMENTALISM its certianly more truth then from AL GORE and his blabbering bog mouth

NO! It's My Preciousssss

Be nice to know why information, gathered at the expense of the US taxpayer can't be shown to anyone.

So this is the "new Democratic science"?

"Be nice to know why information, gathered at the expense of the US taxpayer can't be shown to anyone."

Because much like Barry if the truth be known the gravy train and feeding at the public teet gets cut off.. Same for the sierra club, Algoracle of the clueless and many other nanny state pawnsy schemes.

Center for American "Progress"

Hahahahahahahahahaha...

They should release those numbers so this global warming farce can end.

Here's a multiple choice questions.

C'mon NASA... let's go for throttle up... let's comply with the FOI requests and simply release the data.

Why withhold it? Seriously... why?

A) Because processing the data is so complex that releasing it would reveal the existence of an alien super computer that's kept at Area 51. The CRU had to transmit their data to Area 51 for processing and then delete it for security reasons. A bad dial-up connection to the alien computer resulted in the lost data.

B) Climate science is so complex that it's beyond the comprehension of all but a few elite scientists and releasing the data would only baffle lesser beings. These elite scientists have much better things to do than try to explain their methodologies to a bunch of deniers.

C) Releasing the data would allow skilled researches to work backward from the final data to determine what "corrections" were applied. Those corrections might look like cooking the books to all but a few elite scientists who have reputations and careers on the line.

D) There is no data to be released. The temperature reconstructions are made up by a computer as part of a top secrete project to determine just how gullible various populations are. The researchers never imagined that two of the most gullible people would turn out to be a former Vice President and the current President.

Select the best answer ____

Something else that's interesting...

Al Gore's cancelled his Copenhagen appearance.

He knows the scam's blown. Time to run, Al! You're going to have a lot of folks who were talked into buying 'carbon credits' after your ass...

Yeah, poor Al. Not only all those nasty emails coming to light, but the Danes have also been found to be "trading" in carbon credits - just like Enron. If this conference does go on, bring plenty of popcorn.

14.
No fair. Trick Question: Answer is C&D.

I thought for sure that this thread was about this.

Dang. This: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6750042.html

Maybe they finally are going to rescind on giving Al Gore and the ONE the nobel peace prizes since global warming was a money making farce for a select few and Obama has not lived up to their expectation

I think the reason NASA isnt so forthcoming is because
they are rightly concerned there wont be the needed
funding available to continue with the existing programs. O and congress have been dragging their feet in providing the funding

Personally I'd rather them spend money on the worthwhile NASA programs versus throwing money and wasting it on the stimulus packages/bailouts

Re "spend money on the worthwhile NASA programs"

How can we be sure they are not giving us junk\phony research like this manmade global warming BS research?

Remember how the "deniers" are subsidized by "big oil" .. well Gerald R. Davis (Group Planning, Shell International Petroleum, London, UK) and Douglas D McKay of Shell International Limited, London show up on a few of the CRU e-mails ...

Thank all of you who have attended the SRES Lead Authors' meeting (17-19 September 1997) (0876171248).
Meeting at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California to review the work progress of the four modeling groups (0884731847).
Request for firm number of attendees to IPCC SRES Meeting (0885318160).
Report of minutes of minutes of the SRES informal modelers' meeting (0887665729).
RE-schedule of the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (0888364876).
Info on upcoming IPCC SRES meeting (0888611422).
A solicitation for review of the influence of social and economic policies on future carbon emissions for the SRES (0889047457).
Sending you a copy of Ged Davis' IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on storylines and scenarios (0889554019).
Change of venue for Lead Authors meeting (0893188400).
Guidelines on how to present the IS99 storylines and scenarios (0894639050).
Info on upcoming next SRES Lead Authors meeting in Beijing, China (0904080701).
Request for RSVPs to next SRES Meeting (0904762907).
A solicitation of input for the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) AR3 (0914013281).

In 0962818260, they mention a meeting to have Shell "... accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund ..."

Hey neo... your dumbassness is showing.

The U.S. gov has funded more on this subject and targeted at "green tech" than several "big oil" companies combined.

Neo -

2+2 doesn't equal -3 no matter the base system, and screaming 'OIL FUNDING!' doesn't somehow validate the crap that was passing as 'research'.

Seriously, hard-coding values into programs so no matter what the input you get the proper output is shitty programming, no matter WHO might be funding it.

I think neo was pointing out how 'big oil' was in fact sometimes involved with SUPPORTING the AGW crowd.
I recall seeing many ads from energy companies (big oil) touting their 'green energy' efforts.

A lot of people have been trying to cash in on this AGW mania.

James Hansen should be fined $12 Million for refuseing to turn over whats reqired in the FOIA and perhaps sent to THE SPICEMINES OF KESSEL for life

Yesterday we got copied on this message Schlesinger sent to New York Times science reporter Andy Revkin:

Andy:
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. [Emphasis added.]
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael

Any questions why the MSM has been so quiet ?

Good question #22
the global warming farce is definitely troublesome

but having worked as a contractor for NASA for 20+ years it is truly amazing to me how much is well done on a shoestring (the penny per person)= the positive enhancements/advancements to our daily lives is refreshing and definitely beneficial to humans